[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2309?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12844516#action_12844516
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-2309:
-------------------------------------
bq. Also IRC is not logged/archived and searchable (I think?) which makes it
impossible to trace back a discussion, and/or randomly stumble upon it in
Google.
Apaches rule is, if it didn't happen on this lists, it didn't happen. #IRC is a
great way for people to communicate and hash stuff out, but its not necessary
you follow it. If you have questions or want further elaboration, just ask. No
one can expect you to follow IRC, nor is it a valid reference for where
something was decided. IRC is great - I think its really benefited having devs
discuss there - but the official position is, if it didn't happen on the list,
it didnt actually happen.
> Fully decouple IndexWriter from analyzers
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2309
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2309
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
>
> IndexWriter only needs an AttributeSource to do indexing.
> Yet, today, it interacts with Field instances, holds a private
> analyzers, invokes analyzer.reusableTokenStream, has to deal with a
> wide variety (it's not analyzed; it is analyzed but it's a Reader,
> String; it's pre-analyzed).
> I'd like to have IW only interact with attr sources that already
> arrived with the fields. This would be a powerful decoupling -- it
> means others are free to make their own attr sources.
> They need not even use any of Lucene's analysis impls; eg they can
> integrate to other things like [OpenPipeline|http://www.openpipeline.org].
> Or make something completely custom.
> LUCENE-2302 is already a big step towards this: it makes IW agnostic
> about which attr is "the term", and only requires that it provide a
> BytesRef (for flex).
> Then I think LUCENE-2308 would get us most of the remaining way -- ie, if the
> FieldType knows the analyzer to use, then we could simply create a
> getAttrSource() method (say) on it and move all the logic IW has today
> onto there. (We'd still need existing IW code for back-compat).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
