Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <43A29DCC.7060406@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:58:20 +0100
From: Bernhard Messer <bmesser@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-435) [PATCH] BufferedIndexOutput -
 optimized
 writeBytes() method
References: <1467497219.1127204314175.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
	<2113278418.1134319868448.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
 <20051216103142.2875f6ad.lukas.zapletal@linuxexpres.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20051216103142.2875f6ad.lukas.zapletal@linuxexpres.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------080301030505040006020904"

--------------080301030505040006020904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lukas,

don't worry - we hear you and can see your patch. I will have a look at 
it the next days. Please keep in mind that all committers are volunteers 
and spend their rare free time in improving lucene.

Bernhard

Lukas Zapletal wrote:

>Dne Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:51:08 +0100 (CET)
>"Lukas Zapletal (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org> napsal(a):
>
>  
>
>>I have done what you requested (sorry for the late delay - too busy). I also found a bug in RAMOutputStream - the implementation of flushBuffer method was not able to write any buffers longer than 2*BUFFER_LENGTH. My fast writeBytes patch now handle all various situation and uses the fastest methods to write data.
>>
>>In my opinion its not good to make BUFFER_LENGTH constant public. Consider making it private since this can lead to nontrivial "dependency" (as I have described above). Its not good to have one buffer length for input, output and RAM* objects (which should have independant buffer length at all - it has nothing to do with the caching in the abstract methods). Making it private and maybe accessible on runtime could help a litte (as I said -- I use the API for some index copying and I would like to have larger buffers).
>>
>>Anyway, this is my contribution, I am looking for more reviews. The patch includes StoreTest modification which helps with testing either writeByte method or writeBytes methods. Thanks for your attention.
>>    
>>
>
>Hello, no one interested?
>
>I would be pleased if you look at it and comment it. I think its
>perfect now.
>
>  
>


--------------080301030505040006020904--