lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4101) Remove XXXField.TYPE_STORED
Date Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:36:44 GMT


Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-4101:

Gotcha. I didn't really mind the code dup since it spelled out clearly what the type definitions
were to prevent misreading like I just did, but no biggie.

I think I might tend to agree with Chris here: on one hand I like the purity of just having
a .TYPE, on the other hand i think clarity might be worth it,
after all its a tad confusing since e.g. StringField has a parameter asking for Stored/Unstored,
so which one is its .TYPE? (of course the javadocs
document this, but still). 

But seeing as this is the "expert" api I don't feel very strongly about this.

More important is that the easy API is fixed here in a way that doesn't require adding the
field twice: I like that.

> ---------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4101
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 4.0, 5.0
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4101.patch, LUCENE-4101.patch, LUCENE-4101.patch
> Spinoff from LUCENE-3312.
> For 4.0 I think we should simplify the sugar field APIs by requiring
> that you add a StoredField if you want to store the field.  Expert users
> can still make a custom FieldType that both stores and indexes...

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message