I'll add my 2c. First, let's drop option 2: we don't allow any other
customization of the way fragment scoring works, so if field-specific
highlighting is enabled, we might as well always enable idf scoring
(this can be changed later).
Second, I don't see a name that is simple and clear. At the risk of
verbosity, how about:
requireFieldMatch=true/[false]
or
fieldMustMatchQuery=[true]/false
As Yonik stated that the calls to docFreq shouldn't have much of a performance impact I
agree that we only need two ways of constructing the QueryScorer.
I don't have strong feelings about the naming - it would just be nice if something could
be agreed upon so that I can do a (hopefully) final version of the patch. My 2c is that
whilst the names should not be confusing or misleading, they don't have to be
self-explanatory either - that's what the documentation is for (which I'm happy to update
once this is decided).
-Andrew
