yes fix them for 3.2 and add the incompatibility in the wiki page
On Apr 30, 2009, at 19:36, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
Thank you very much for the suggestions, maybe what I was trying is
I'll try to use the FunctionQuery; remember I had the patch in Search
more or less working if one day you might need it.
BTW I've just realized the Discriminator interface is having a nasty
typo in the public api method name :
"getAnanyzerDefinitionName" instead of getAnalyzerDefinitionName
and the bug is repeated in all documentation.
fixing for 3.2?
2009/4/30 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>:
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 14:11, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>> 2009/4/30 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org>:
>>> On Apr 30, 2009, at 13:01, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
>>>> Basically I need a function to convert a user-proposed term to a
>>>> series of proposals
>>>> of "similar" terms but giving a higher rank to the terms
>>>> him to choose as they
>>>> are the correct names used in my domain.
>>>> You can think of it as a spellchecker/dictionary (using synonyms
>>>> toos), but giving priority to
>>>> a selected form of each term, known as the "root", or the
>>>> form in the domain.
>>> Have you considered indexing the same property twice:
>>> - once unaltered and giving it a high boost
>>> - once with synonyms and giving it a low boost
>>> That's how I would sove your use case personally.
>> That would be clever if I had only two levels of boost, but it's
>> not the
>> Also most properties are being indexed already in 5+n different
>> being n the number of supported languages for snowball (currently
>> so the next step
>> will be to try the programmatic configuration to remove all this
>> So adding more fields will drammatically increase the number of them
>> (number of boost
>> levels * (5 + number of enabled stemmers))
> number of boost? the level of boost is defined at query time so I
> there would be the clean data and the synonym data ie 2 * (5 +
>> and make the index size unnecessarily large, and I'm not solving the
>> time-fading requirement.
> Well yes but dynamic boosting as defined by you does not solve the
> fading requirement either right?
> FunctionQuery does (or can)
>> My BI suite is returning some nice float which I'm storing in the
>> entity itself as a property,
>> it would make my life a lot easier if I could just use this float
>> value as the document boost.
> I'd rather see something more generic like the @AnalyzerDiscriminator
> approach we've used if really really you want to set that at
> indexing time.