RE: Field.java - STORED, NOT_STORED, etc...

2004-07-12 Thread wallen
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

Re: Field.java - STORED, NOT_STORED, etc...

2004-07-12 Thread Kevin A. Burton
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 the

Re: Field.java - STORED, NOT_STORED, etc...

2004-07-11 Thread Doug Cutting
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 =

Re: Field.java - STORED, NOT_STORED, etc...

2004-07-11 Thread Doug Cutting
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

Re: Field.java - STORED, NOT_STORED, etc...

2004-07-11 Thread Tatu Saloranta
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 like: ... then