Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID;
  b=z+d6ntCMX+s2h5Q/d576Fn6NcEvF2BVF8Bv5RcJRLBJHFRGbwl5G745uZ6jnAy6/mLWmrQRc6x7soR8tuJ4HRMr9sTEShwXutnUDALYT0Jz9oolQqlgneBLMsQD+BFyyAklSVF7eTIauNAMK9jMQl1OYB24i0Y7SyqsgjGNN69s=;
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodnetic@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Caching in QueryFilter - why?
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Message-ID: <841387.31385.qm@web50311.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Sounds like I need to cut that out.
Since caching is built into the public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader)  method, I don't see a way to deprecate that, which means I'll just cut it out and document it in CHANGES.txt.  Anyone who wants QueryFilter caching will be able to get the caching back by wrapping the QueryFilter in your CachingWrapperFilter.


Otis
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/  -  Tag  -  Search  -  Share

----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Hatcher <erik@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2007 7:38:00 PM
Subject: Re: Caching in QueryFilter - why?

CachingWrapperFilter came along after QueryFilter.  I think I added  
CachingWrapperFilter when I realized that every Filter should have  
the capability to be cached without having to implement it.  So, the  
only reason is "legacy".  I'm perfectly fine with removing the  
caching from QueryFilter in a future major release.

    Erik

On Apr 4, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at LUCENE-853, so I also looked at CachingWrapperFilter  
> and then at QueryFilter.  I noticed QueryFilter does its own BitSet  
> caching, and the caching part of its code is nearly identical to  
> the code in CachingWrapperFilter.
>
> Why is that?  Is there a good reason for that?
>
> Thanks,
> Otis
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/  -  Tag  -  Search  -  Share
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


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


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