[hibernate-issues] [Hibernate-JIRA] Commented: (HSEARCH-711) Review of @org.hibernate.search.annotations.Index parameters
[
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-711?pag...
]
Hardy Ferentschik commented on HSEARCH-711:
-------------------------------------------
I kind of liked the idea of splitting out the _norm_ parameter, but it causes some
questions. For example, how do you handle _Index.NO_ if you just have _analyze_ and
_norms_? You also have _index_ (YES, NO)? And if you go down this path what do you do in
cases of _index=NO_ + _analyze=YES_ - ignore, log warning, error!?
Out of interest, why do we currently not have an equivalent for
_org.apache.lucene.document.Field.Index.ANALYZED_NO_NORMS_ in
_org.hibernate.search.annotations.Index_?
Review of @org.hibernate.search.annotations.Index parameters
------------------------------------------------------------
Key: HSEARCH-711
URL:
http://opensource.atlassian.com/projects/hibernate/browse/HSEARCH-711
Project: Hibernate Search
Issue Type: Deprecation
Reporter: Sanne Grinovero
Fix For: 4.0.0.Beta1
We're having Enum values labeled _NO_, _TOKENIZED_, _UN_TOKENIZED_, _NO_NORMS_, ...
Lucene changed these names to more suited "analyzed", "not_analyzed",
etc.
Also I think it would be great to use an array of parameters instead of an enum listing
all options, or maybe split the option in two:
{code}
@Field({ANALYZE,NO_NORMS})
{code}
or
{code}
@Field(analyze=YES,norms=NO)
{code}
We should at least deprecate current names and use the more appropriate terms.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira