Also, I would like to take advantage of using an ac-hoc FieldType type since we know exactly how we're going to use this field.
I am not quite sure what you mean or have in mind? Are you talking about org.apache.lucene.document.FieldType?
I think the user should be free to add additional @Field annotations if he needs so
Sure, that has been the case either all the time. There is another rub with this one, embedded entities. We are saying the document id is indexed non numeric. What's about the id of an embedded/associated entity. Somehow you would expect this to be non numeric then as well, right? ATM, I think we don't carry the necessary information around in the metadata parsing. At least I am not sure.
We can't do much for those who built a Lucene Query using Lucene APIs
Which is imo still the better approach (but anyways)
but we should be able to validate the types when people use the DSL right?
we should be able to do something, yes. Not sure yet how far this would go.
For the Lucene Queries, the best we can do is to provide the dump of the indexing metadata to make it easier for people to find out how we're indexing things
Not sure how much this really helps in this case, but there is a issue for dumping the config data anyways.
|