Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2889 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 10:19:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 10:19:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 41413 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2009 10:19:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 41347 invoked by uid 500); 26 Mar 2009 10:19:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 41338 invoked by uid 99); 26 Mar 2009 10:19:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:19:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.200.168] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:19:02 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so547555wff.20 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:18:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.79.17 with SMTP id c17mr304884wfb.171.1238062722190; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:18:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49CA90BB.70106@gmail.com> References: <9ac0c6aa0903230743y7bfebdb3t3860f36e27ca195d@mail.gmail.com> <786fde50903230929o1493d67cxc3b3cf8fbe5e2ef5@mail.gmail.com> <9ac0c6aa0903231156h50238132uaf7b9800ad2c87d9@mail.gmail.com> <786fde50903240547o748ec151le91f5be2e423f110@mail.gmail.com> <9ac0c6aa0903241051l272a6653he0580ed1e495dab4@mail.gmail.com> <786fde50903241329u18a0ea3cm7ca21219c5491d90@mail.gmail.com> <9ac0c6aa0903250638g351f8c4aw4a55ec1f0ea165cc@mail.gmail.com> <786fde50903251155j4a07bb85l81c5a25731875f02@mail.gmail.com> <49CA90BB.70106@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:18:41 -0400 Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa0903260318w672582f2t4b15f24025adf55b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Is TopDocCollector's collect() implementation correct? From: Michael McCandless To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Mark Miller wrote: > bq. I personally don't understand why MRHC was invented in the first place. > > The evolution of MRHC is in the comments of LUCENE-1483 - a lot of comments > to wade through though. MRHC was created because simply adding setNextReader to HC would break back compat, because collect(...) is called on the un-rebased doc. Ie we need a new class so we can tell that it will handle re-basing the doc itself. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org