2. is not backward compatible index-wsie, is it?
Are we ok to break backward compatibility on indexes?
On 13 déc. 2009, at 23:41, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm trying to migrate Hibernate Search to Lucene 2.9;
> As you might now the COMPRESS store option is not supported in 3.0
> so I had created "HSEARCH-425 Remove support for compressed fields
> (support removed in Lucene3)"
>
> but looking better I see now that javadocs state:
>
> [...]
> * the new way to achieve this is: First add the field
> indexed-only (no store)
> * and additionally using the same field name as a binary, stored field
> * with {...@link CompressionTools#compressString}.
>
> So I was wrong as we actually have two options:
> 1) drop support deprecating the COMPRESS enum value
> 2) implement the new strategy as suggested by Lucene's developers
>
> I'm assuming you all would agree on 2) ?
> If so I'll rename HSEARCH-425 to "Reimplement support for compressed
> fields in Lucene3"
>
> Cheers,
> Sanne
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
