This really was a half-a-line fix to the score method. :) I'll check in the code after I rename it as Doug had suggested in his email below.
Tim - thanks for the elegant contribution. Do you think you'll be able to add support for sorting on Float and String fields in the near future? Otis --- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim Jones wrote: > > Does anyone have any feedback after looking at the code I submitted > for > > sorting results? Doug and Erik - do you see this as a good way to > go, or do > > you have other ideas in mind? For example, what about creating a > special > > kind of "SortingField"? > > I like the implementation, requiring an indexed field, but > recommending > against storing or tokenizing. Most other folks (including myself) > who've done this use a stored field and then iterate over documents > to > fill the cache. Instead you're able to fill the cache with a > TermDocs, > which is much more efficient. Good idea! > > That said, I've not had a chance to test the code. But if someone > tests > it, and it works well, I see no reason not to include it. > > We might rename it something like IntegerSortedSearcher and also add > classes called FloatSortedSearcher, StringSortedSearcher, etc. These > > could all build on a base class, AbstractSortedSearcher. > > Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
