Yes, I would prefer to have native Object support. It's not that I do not know how to wrap arround that, it is just that I thought this would be a nice and lean extension of the Lucene API without loosing the primary focus of Lucene.
To make this really lean in terms of generated index size I guess it would be better to have those serialized Objects stored as byte[] rather than String? Dmitry Serebrennikov schrieb: > > Frank Nestel wrote: > > >[...] > > > > > >For a short moment I considered marshalling this extra info into XML or > >at least text. But this means an considerable overhead and another > >developers inconvenience. It should be possible to have a different kind > >of Field which holds a Serializable Object just stored, untokenized and > >unindexed just for retrieval together with other document data. > >Probably there might be other applications where even unstored Fields > >of that kind would make sense, but tokenizing should be impossible. And > >I do not want to dream here about what one could do if indexing was > >possible. > > > What's preventing you from doing this now? I think you could declare a > stored / untokenized / unindexed field. Maybe the problem is that it has > to contain a string, whereas serialized objects should really be stored > as byte[]. Is that the deal? -- ------------------------------------------ooO---"---Ooo------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED], "I hate this game, lets play it again" http://doris-frank.de, http://duf.spieleck.de/mailman/listinfo Dr. Frank Sven Nestel, http://spieleck.de, http://frank.spieleck.de Spiele von Doris und Frank, Wolfsstaudenring 32, D-91056 Erlangen, GERMANY
