Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11267 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2005 01:08:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Feb 2005 01:08:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 14534 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2005 01:08:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14502 invoked by uid 500); 25 Feb 2005 01:08:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 14463 invoked by uid 99); 25 Feb 2005 01:08:43 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (HELO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net) (216.148.227.85) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:08:42 -0800 Received: from [192.168.168.81] (c-24-5-160-217.client.comcast.net[24.5.160.217]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005022501084001400hn7cie>; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 01:08:40 +0000 Message-ID: <421E7A97.6020305@apache.org> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:08:39 -0800 From: Doug Cutting User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041127) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: Patch - IndexReader methods and MultiSearcher methods... References: <421E393A.40801@newsmonster.org> <421E4001.4000309@apache.org> <421E451E.9030704@newsmonster.org> <421E5F20.8080906@apache.org> <421E6ED3.9040402@newsmonster.org> In-Reply-To: <421E6ED3.9040402@newsmonster.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Kevin A. Burton wrote: > I *realize* that there are other ways to do this but we have some legacy > code that can't be rewritten right now. Thus the change to protected > and using a reloadable implementation. Changing Lucene's API to be back-compatible with an altered version of Lucene is not a compelling argument for this change. > Anyway... adding protected doesn't seem like the end of the world. If > you don't want to add it thats fine but there are two other patches > there which aren't very controversial so I'd like to get those accepted :) I don't have a problem with those. They seem like fine additions. I probably don't have time to commit them today, but will try to get to it tomorrow if no one else does first. Cheers, Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org