You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Robert Muir (Created) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2011/12/07 00:32:40 UTC
[jira] [Created] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
-----------------------------------------------------
Key: LUCENE-3622
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Task
Reporter: Robert Muir
Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166306#comment-13166306 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
And as I said, calling it IndexDocValues doesn't really help the confusion matter IMO.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166290#comment-13166290 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
I think it does: we need to use the simplest naming possible within the core api (especially for core index features).
Just like we have Field (and there is java.lang.reflect.Field) and Document (and there is org.w3c.dom.Document) and we use Term and other short names.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166315#comment-13166315 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
bq. we had some arguments when merging from the docvalues branch into trunk that the name is easy to be confused with DocValues in the function package since they are both in core. This is where my statement comes from.
Yeah, I got that. I wasn't involved in that discussion, but if I was, I would have argued that calling it IndexDocValues didn't help the situation much and we should have just kept it as DocValues anyway. I just don't think because a class moves to another lucene 'component' that it helps the situation any. I still consider modules first class.
I'd also have argued that in 4 we should rename the function DocValues class to something else. It's advanced to mess in that area, and people can handle a change in a move to 4.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Updated) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-3622:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-3622.patch
patch, will look kinda wierd due to svn moves (thats all i did).
DirectSource, IndexDocValues, MultiIndexDocValues, PerDocFieldValues, SourceCache, TypePromoter, and ValueType stayed as the 'abstract' api and everything else moved to Lucene40Codec.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Simon Willnauer (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166241#comment-13166241 ]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3622:
-----------------------------------------
robert, while you are on it I think we should rename IndexDocValues to DocValues. I think the confusion with
org.apache.lucene.queries.function.DocValues doesn't exist anymore since its now in modules. The Core class should be a the first class citizen here.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Ryan McKinley (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166327#comment-13166327 ]
Ryan McKinley commented on LUCENE-3622:
---------------------------------------
+1 for FunctionValues
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166310#comment-13166310 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
bq. I think it does: we need to use the simplest naming possible within the core api (especially for core index features).
Heh - thats not an argument that it removes the confusion just because its now part of a module. Thats an argument that we should name it DocValues regardless.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Simon Willnauer (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13164220#comment-13164220 ]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3622:
-----------------------------------------
+1 go for it
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Jason Rutherglen (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166305#comment-13166305 ]
Jason Rutherglen commented on LUCENE-3622:
------------------------------------------
+! To the function naming being completely off. That's the naming that should change.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Simon Willnauer (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166311#comment-13166311 ]
Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3622:
-----------------------------------------
bq. And as I said, calling it IndexDocValues doesn't really help the confusion matter IMO.
a bit of history I hope I recall correctly... we had some arguments when merging from the docvalues branch into trunk that the name is easy to be confused with DocValues in the function package since they are both in core. This is where my statement comes from.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Issue Comment Edited] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues
interface from implementation
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (Issue Comment Edited) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166296#comment-13166296 ]
Uwe Schindler edited comment on LUCENE-3622 at 12/9/11 4:46 PM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Robert and Simon, we should have simpliest name (DocValues). The function stuff is in my opinion already named wrongly, I hate e.g. ValueSource, this name should die, die, die - and this one creates confusion everywhere :-)
was (Author: thetaphi):
I agree with Robert and Simon, we should have simpliest name (DocValues). The function stuff is in my opinion already named, wrong, I hate e.g. ValueSource, this name should die, die, die - and this one creates confusion everywhere :-)
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Uwe Schindler (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166296#comment-13166296 ]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-3622:
---------------------------------------
I agree with Robert and Simon, we should have simpliest name (DocValues). The function stuff is in my opinion already named, wrong, I hate e.g. ValueSource, this name should die, die, die - and this one creates confusion everywhere :-)
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166319#comment-13166319 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
I'd also have argued that in 4 we should rename the function DocValues class to something else. It's advanced to mess in that area, and people can handle a change in a move to 4.
{quote}
Should we try this out in the branch here? what would be a better name? FunctionValues?
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166289#comment-13166289 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
Does that really remove the confusion? Not sure I agree with that. It does kind of suck we have this clash...I don't know that IndexDocValues even makes it much better.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166328#comment-13166328 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
+1
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166312#comment-13166312 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
For now in the branch (https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene3622), i renamed/shuffled in r1212506.
You can take a look and see what you think... we can/should always be thinking of naming and how it can be simpler.
With separating out the abstract api, its small enough I moved it out of .values to just org.apache.lucene.index
(which makes IndexDocValues seem awefully redundant).
Additionally PerDocValues was moved out of the codecs package, as you get it from IndexReader and it doesnt make
sense under .codecs.
Finally ValueType is DocValues.Type (just like DocValues.Source, etc), and TypePromoter is now pkg-private, as its
just an implementation detail of SegmentMerger.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Resolved] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Resolved) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir resolved LUCENE-3622.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 4.0
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch, LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Robert Muir (Updated) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Robert Muir updated LUCENE-3622:
--------------------------------
Attachment: LUCENE-3622.patch
There is more to be done here, but I'd like to merge the work so far to trunk to make maintenance easier.
the following classes are renamed:
* IndexDocValues -> DocValues
* ValueType -> DocValues.Type
* PerDocFieldValues -> DocValue
* function's DocValues -> FunctionValues
DocValues classes are no longer in o.a.l.index.values, instead the 'general' classes (only 4 or so) are in o.a.l.index.
The lucene40-implementation dependent classes are now underneath lucene40 codec.
PerDocValues is only held by the core and not exposed to IndexReader. Its renamed to PerDocProducer (consistent with PerDocConsumer).
IndexReader only has DocValues docValues(String field) as its api. MultiPerDocValues is removed as its not exposed and there is only MultiDocValues.
SortedSource doesn't require that you exposed a packed-ints reader, you might not implement things that way. Instead it has a hasPacked* method so that sorting can optimize in case you do have it.
FieldInfo no longer has a transactional API for setting term vectors or docvalues information: the problem was that we could end out with extra files if there was an exception and only that document needed them. Instead of a commit/revert thing it just sets them after it successfully indexes.
Type promotion is moved from the codec implementation to SegmentMerger. Because of this, SegmentMerger no longer lies to other codec components about the fieldinfos, with DocValues changing them behind the scenes, instead it computes fieldinfos up front, writes them to disk, and codecs see "the real fieldinfos". This also means like merging of other lucene type information, our 'type promotion' across incompatible docvalues types is well-defined instead of being implementation-dependent.
Some unused/unnecessary/dead methods/code in the abstract apis are removed.
CheckIndex has lots more checking for docvalues (and norms too).
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch, LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3622) separate IndexDocValues interface
from implementation
Posted by "Mark Miller (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13166303#comment-13166303 ]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-3622:
-------------------------------------
Its two different points:
1. Does it remove the confusion - I don't agree that it does.
2. Should the core api get the simplest name.
> separate IndexDocValues interface from implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3622
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3622
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-3622.patch
>
>
> Currently the o.a.l.index.values contains both the abstract apis and Lucene40's current implementation.
> I think we should move the implementation underneath Lucene40Codec, leaving only the abstract apis.
> For example, simpletext might have a different implementation, and we might make a int8 implementation
> underneath preflexcodec to support norms.
--
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: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org