Doug Cutting wrote:
It would be best to get the compiler to check the order.
If we change this, why not use type-safe enumerations:
http://www.javapractices.com/Topic1.cjp
The calls would look like:
new Field("name", "value", Stored.YES, Indexed.NO, Tokenized.YES);
Stored could be implemented as th
I think this is a great idea.
I've never used the Field.Keyword and Field.Text type methods because I
can never remember what their 3-boolean-argument equivalents are. I
always stick the constructor format in a comment somewhere and use it.
>>> Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/11/04 12:03PM >>
I have 2 suggestions:
1) use Eclipse, or an IDE that references the javadoc with mouseovers
2) if you are going to create constants, consider using a bitflag. Then
your constants can have a 2's value, ie
STORED = 1
INDEXED = 2
TOKENIZED = 4
Then you can have the constructor look like:
new Fiel
On Sunday 11 July 2004 10:03, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Doug Cutting wrote:
> > The calls would look like:
> >
> > new Field("name", "value", Stored.YES, Indexed.NO, Tokenized.YES);
> >
.
> Actually, while we're at it, Indexed and Tokenized are confounded. A
> single entry would be better, something l
Doug Cutting wrote:
The calls would look like:
new Field("name", "value", Stored.YES, Indexed.NO, Tokenized.YES);
Stored could be implemented as the nested class:
public final class Stored {
private Stored() {}
public static final Stored YES = new Stored();
public static final Stored NO = new
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
So I added a few constants to my class:
new Field( "name", "value", NOT_STORED, INDEXED, NOT_TOKENIZED );
which IMO is a lot easier to maintain.
Why not add these constants to Field.java:
public static final boolean STORED = true;
public static final boolean NOT_STORED
