lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Busch <busch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.9 and deprecated IR.open() methods
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:06:43 GMT
On 10/4/09 3:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Ted Dunning wrote:
>    
>> The builder pattern and the config argument to a factory both have the
>> advantage that you can limit changes after creating an object.  Some
>> things are just bad to change in mid-stream.  The config argument is
>> nice in that you can pass it around to different stake holders, but
>> the builder can be used a bit like that as well.
>>      
> Yeah that argument has been made. But I've *never* seen it as an issue.
> Just seems like a solution looking for a problem. I can see how it's
> cleaner, not missing that point. But still doesn't make me like it much.
>
>    
Yeah personally this wasn't a problem for me either. I do like the 
cleanliness though. Also, I'd very much prefer a config object over 
multiple constructors (with the need to deprecate/add with every 
change), as I proposed originally in this thread.

I still don't see an advantage of the builder pattern over the config 
object + factory pattern - and I'm not even sure if we really need a 
factory; IMO passing a config object into a single constructor would be 
sufficient for IW.

  Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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