On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 13:39 +0200, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> I've been thinking about a DSL to build Lucene queries in the last
> day.
> What do you think of this proposal?
What do you really gain compared to native Lucene queries?
If your API achieves exactly the same as what's possible with Luce
Hi, thanks for comments ant tips. I'm improving it.Yes, I was checking with
profiler tool and hashcode - even not so heavy - was called often summary
took some time.
There is one test where multiple threads can read or write from/to different
cache instances. However I think would be good to do som
Hi there - all looks good. Some comments:
Summary documentation - is this going to be published on a wiki page
or something somewhere? Especially the Infinispan bit? I think
people will find this info very useful...
CacheKey - if this class is what everything is going to be used in the
c
I've been thinking about a DSL to build Lucene queries in the last day.
What do you think of this proposal?
A few remarks:
- it asks the analyzer so that we correctly apply the analyzer on
terms
- it has a few query factory methods
- it contains a few orthogonal operations
- I am not quite
Hi
I think it would be slightly better to do the package renaming.
I can't find any downside to it. The diff is too small to be useful to
developers anyway.
On 26 août 09, at 10:25, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Regarding HV-185 - I checked the class names and there wouldn't be
> any con
