Doug, I will add comments to the code and reduce the number of public classes.
Maurits. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 7:37 PM Subject: RE: Dutch Stemmer > This looks good. It is low-risk, since it changes no existing classes, > adding new classes in a new package. It looks as though you've implemented > the right things (a stemming filter, and an analyzer that plugs this > together with a stop list and tokenizer). I don't speak Dutch, so I cannot > assess the quality of these. > > My concerns before this is checked in are that: > 1. It compiles. I have not tested this yet, and we don't want to break > the build. > 2. More Javadoc is added. My rule of thumb is that there should be no > empty boxes in the generated javadoc, i.e., every publicly visible class, > method and field must be documented. Also, every package should have a > package.html with at least a one-line description of what is in the package. > 3. Fewer classes and methods are public. Do the Rule, RuleVector and > DutchStemmer classes need to be public? Probably little more than the core > classes (DutchStemFilter DutchAnalyzer) need to be public. > > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Maurits van Wijland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 12:48 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Cutting > > Subject: Dutch Stemmer > > > > > > Doug, > > > > Here is my first version of the dutch stemmer. > > Doug could you have a look at this? > > > > kind regards, > > > > Maurits > > > > > > >
