lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: 2.9/3.0 plan & Java 1.5
Date Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:07:47 GMT

Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> IIRC, we also agreed that we didn't feel any compelling reason to  
> make a sweeping change to generics, but would likely just add them  
> as we see 'em, unless of course someone wants to do a wholesale patch.

I like that approach.

> In the case of generics, I see no reason why we can't intro them  
> over time, people using the non-generic forms will still work.

I don't fully understand the back compatibility of generics, but I did  
try changing Document.getFields to return List<Fieldable> and even  
List<Integer> (hmm), as well as separately changing a caller of that  
API to assign to a List<Fieldable> type, and things compile & test fine.

Does anyone know of any gotchyas that'd happen if in fact we slowly  
over time changed existing APIs to use generics?

EG I haven't yet tested for JAR drop-in compatibility, eg if in 3.1 we  
wanted to swap in more generics, would a 3.0 app be able to drop in  
the 3.1 Lucene jar w/o problems?


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

View raw message