[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13287294#comment-13287294
]
Chris Male commented on LUCENE-3312:
------------------------------------
bq. With the Field class implementing IndexableField and StorableField, and on
retrieval returning a different class that implements only StorableField?
Yes, Nikola has included a StoredDocument class for that. This would prevent
users from thinking they can just take a search result and pass it into being
indexed. It creates a clear separation between indexing and search results.
bq. But the strong decoupling of stored/indexed parts of a field has its
benefits too (arbitrary sequences of stored/indexed parts of fields)... and if
you require a specific implementation at the level of (input) Document then you
prevent users from using their own impls. of strongly decoupled sequences of
StoredField/IndexedField.
I agree that there are benefits to the decoupling. It's just that one of the
important factors in this issue and other work in and around Document & Field
is creating a cleaner API for users. I'm not sure bogging the
document.Document API down with having to manage both Storable and
IndexableField instances is worth it. Field is already basically a parent
class with the extensive list of specializations we now have.
I'm wondering whether expert users who are using their own
Storable/IndexableField impls will also want their own 'Document' impls as
well, maybe to support direct streaming of fields or something. If we enforce
this, then we're have a consistent policy that to use these expert interfaces,
you're going to have to provide your own implementations for everything.
With all that said, I'm open to a clean API in Document that can do everything
:)
> Break out StorableField from IndexableField
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3312
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3312
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Nikola Tankovic
> Labels: gsoc2012, lucene-gsoc-12
> Fix For: Field Type branch
>
> Attachments: lucene-3312-patch-01.patch, lucene-3312-patch-02.patch,
> lucene-3312-patch-03.patch, lucene-3312-patch-04.patch
>
>
> In the field type branch we have strongly decoupled
> Document/Field/FieldType impl from the indexer, by having only a
> narrow API (IndexableField) passed to IndexWriter. This frees apps up
> use their own "documents" instead of the "user-space" impls we provide
> in oal.document.
> Similarly, with LUCENE-3309, we've done the same thing on the
> doc/field retrieval side (from IndexReader), with the
> StoredFieldsVisitor.
> But, maybe we should break out StorableField from IndexableField,
> such that when you index a doc you provide two Iterables -- one for the
> IndexableFields and one for the StorableFields. Either can be null.
> One downside is possible perf hit for fields that are both indexed &
> stored (ie, we visit them twice, lookup their name in a hash twice,
> etc.). But the upside is a cleaner separation of concerns in API....
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
