lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1919) Analysis back compat break
Date Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:38:57 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12756898#action_12756898
] 

Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-1919 at 9/17/09 6:38 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------

edit: collision w/ robert.
Still wonder if it's safe to get rid of that second clone()... the combinations are mind-bending.

      was (Author: yseeley@gmail.com):
    Robert, you would need to handle the incrementToken() case too in next() - that's actually
where the bug occured in the Solr test.

{code}
    if (supportedMethods.hasIncrementToken) {
      tokenWrapper.delegate = new Token();
      return incrementToken() ? ((Token) tokenWrapper.delegate.clone()) : null;
{code}

Could we remove the clone()?  not sure...
  
> Analysis back compat break
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1919
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Yonik Seeley
>             Fix For: 2.9
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch
>
>
> Old and new style token streams don't mix well.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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


Mime
View raw message