Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-2308:
Another merge patch -- fixed a few more conflicts, some places where we lost the doc-level boost, simplified the Field/Document API some more, added some missing @Overrides, etc.
> Separately specify a field's type
> Key: LUCENE-2308
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2308 > Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/index
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
> Fix For: 4.0
> Attachments: LUCENE-2308-10.patch, LUCENE-2308-11.patch, LUCENE-2308-12.patch, LUCENE-2308-13.patch, LUCENE-2308-14.patch, LUCENE-2308-15.patch, LUCENE-2308-16.patch, LUCENE-2308-17.patch, LUCENE-2308-18.patch, LUCENE-2308-19.patch, LUCENE-2308-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-20.patch, LUCENE-2308-21.patch, LUCENE-2308-3.patch, LUCENE-2308-4.patch, LUCENE-2308-5.patch, LUCENE-2308-6.patch, LUCENE-2308-7.patch, LUCENE-2308-8.patch, LUCENE-2308-9.patch, LUCENE-2308-ltc.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-1.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-2.patch, LUCENE-2308-merge-3.patch, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs, LUCENE-2308.branchdiffs.moved, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch, LUCENE-2308.patch
> This came up from dicussions on IRC. I'm summarizing here...
> Today when you make a Field to add to a document you can set things
> index or not, stored or not, analyzed or not, details like omitTfAP,
> omitNorms, index term vectors (separately controlling
> offsets/positions), etc.
> I think we should factor these out into a new class (FieldType?).
> Then you could re-use this FieldType instance across multiple fields.
> The Field instance would still hold the actual value.
> We could then do per-field analyzers by adding a setAnalyzer on the
> FieldType, instead of the separate PerFieldAnalzyerWrapper (likewise
> for per-field codecs (with flex), where we now have
> This would NOT be a schema! It's just refactoring what we already
> specify today. EG it's not serialized into the index.
> This has been discussed before, and I know Michael Busch opened a more
> ambitious (I think?) issue. I think this is a good first baby step. We could
> consider a hierarchy of FIeldType (NumericFieldType, etc.) but maybe hold
> off on that for starters...