lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Hostetter <>
Subject Re: Shouldn't IndexWriter.commit(Map) accept Properties instead?
Date Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:43:24 GMT
: The javadocs state clearly it must be Map<String,String>.  Plus, the
: type checking is in fact enforced (you hit an exception if you violate
: it), dynamically (like Python).
: And then I was thinking with 1.5 (3.0 -- huh, neat how it's exactly
: 2X) we'd statically type it (change Map to Map<String,String>).

the other option i've seen in similar situations is to document that 
Map<Object,Object> is allowed, but that the Object will be toString()ed 
and the resulting value is what will be used.

In the common case of Strings, the functionality is the same without 
requiring any explicit casting or instanceof error checking.

the added bonuses are:
  1) people can pass other "simple" objects (Integers, Foats, Booleans) 
and 99% of the time get what they want.
  2) people can pass wrapper objects that implement toString() in a non 
trivial way and have the string produced for them lazily when the time 
comes to use the String.  (ie: if my string value is expensive to produce, 
i can defer that cost until needed in case the commit fails for some other 
reason before my string is even used)


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

View raw message