It sounds to me that having the ability to do that that point 13. in CHANGES states is more important than trying to only slightly decrease the number of temporary objects instantiated.
By the way, have you observed or measured the difference in performance, memory consumption or anything else, before and after your local changes? Not having those and making Token immutable for performance reasons would be wrong. Thanks, Otis --- stephane vaucher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've noticed that there is a method public void > setPositionIncrement(int > positionIncrement) that would probably have to disappear for Token to > be > immutable. The CHANGES.txt doc seems to mention some good reasons why > it > was added, but there is no code in CVS that seems to depend on it. > > From CHANGES: > 13. Added new method Token.setPositionIncrement(). > > This permits, for the purpose of phrase searching, placing > multiple terms in a single position. This is useful with > stemmers that produce multiple possible stems for a word. > > This also permits the introduction of gaps between terms, so > that > terms which are adjacent in a token stream will not be matched > by > and exact phrase query. This makes it possible, e.g., to build > an analyzer where phrases are not matched over stop words which > have been removed. > > Finally, repeating a token with an increment of zero can also be > used to boost scores of matches on that token. (cutting) > > Any comments? With an immutable Token, does the positionIncrement > still > have a reason for being there? If not, then I'll remove > getPositionIncrement as well. > > Stephane > > Doug Cutting wrote: > > > stephane vaucher wrote: > > > >> 1) Does anyone mind? Will it break anything? > > > > > > It shouldn't break anything. > > > >> 2) Are there units tests for this? (particularly > PorterStemFilter). > >> The changes are obviously not spectacular, but I prefer not to > screw > >> everyone up... > > > > > > I don't know of any unit tests specifically for this. Mostly this > > change will affect compilation. In general though, if you don't > see > > unit tests for things that you think you might break, then it never > > > hurts to write more unit tests. > > > >> 3) I've checked-out the latest version of lucene, is there > anything > >> special I need to do if I get the go ahead to check my stuff in > (like > >> a dev list review)? > > > > > > If you're not a regular committer then please send diffs to > lucene-dev > > before comitting and give folks a few days to consider the changes. > > > > Doug > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
