On 5/4/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah that seems simple enough, i'm not sure what Yonik ment by this
comment...
// Instead of storing a type, this could be implemented as a hierarchy
// with a virtual matches().
// Given how often a search will be done, however, speed is the overriding
// concern and I'm not sure which is faster.
... i don't see how this ever comes into play with search.
DynamicField lookup (matching) needs to be done almost everywhere if a
field name doesn't match a non-dynamic field. That includes parsing
queries (to get the analyzer), and writing responses (the field type
needs to be known).
The comment should really be next to the matches() method. It was on
the class containing it in the past, but a refactor made to support
dynamic copyField moved it even further away.
-Yonik
