Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
From: "Matt Tucker" <matt@jivesoftware.com>
To: "'Lucene Developers List'" <lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: FSDirectory patch for file renaming
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:12:30 -0500
Message-ID: <00f001c2d714$bb52aab0$6401a8c0@Matt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200302172156.18689.tatu@hypermall.net>

Tatu,

> The only suggestion I have is to encapsulate this workaround=20
> in one place, perhaps to a utility class file (util/FileUtil.java?), =
and=20
> only called from the other place(s) (right now that would be just one
place?).=20
> This way workaround code wouldn't add code clutter to actual=20
> functionality, and could=20
> be properly commented in utility class itself.

Personally, this seems like overkill to me. There is only a single use =
of
File.renameTo in the entire Lucene codebase, so why not keep the =
workaround
code local to that usage? Additionally, we're only talking about a few =
lines
of code. Is it really better to add a whole new class?

Regards,
Matt


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org