lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4371) consider refactoring slicer to indexinput.slice
Date Sat, 17 May 2014 08:05:16 GMT


Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-4371:

Looks cool.

I was a bit confused about ByteBufferIndexInput, because this one already has {{slice(...)}}.
We should add {{@Override}} here, because it now implements abstract method.

I still have to think if close works as expected, but this did not change as before. Maybe
this is my misunderstanding, but it is really confusing:
Slices are always closed by consumer code (not like clones) or not? If yes, all looks fine,
but we should document this: clones do not need to be closed, but what about slices? I think
we use the same FileDescriptor, so we also don't need to close the slices?

> consider refactoring slicer to indexinput.slice
> -----------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-4371
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch
> From LUCENE-4364:
> {quote}
> In my opinion, we should maybe check, if we can remove the whole Slicer in all Indexinputs?
Just make the slice(...) method return the current BufferedIndexInput-based one. This could
be another issue, once this is in.
> {quote}

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message