Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of serera@gmail.com designates
 74.125.78.27 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=W+FyFHWTrfqsCjuhY/IQ+n6R+6Kc1rtWXqPZ41NXiEjmjGbscZFBmDLN9ZAk7G0qfN
         wtZ8/gq0JbJZM+zGQ5PQlB5+Uy7Dk8bisI59WtwlUMECp0e47o5Hq0Qf2aHeQPK6KXT+
         /UpkgJo1sfCHXQ91nJxA9/KyragPbk1WxDDDM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:42:11 +0200
Message-ID: <786fde51002222242y7504f736n440b92bdb9c60138@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: IndexFileNames
From: Shai Erera <serera@gmail.com>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a49f78f28304803ed98e

--001636c5a49f78f28304803ed98e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi,

I've noticed that IFN is package private, including its constants and
methods. Any reason why not make it public? I need to create my own
Directory, and would like to query whether a file is 'my file' or Lucene's
file. Getting access to the extensions can help. Currently I have to put my
code in o.a.l package, which I prefer not to.

Also, I think the constants could be wrong in some situations. They only
include the extension itself, w/o the "." part. That leads to many places in
the code where I see this <code>fname + "." + IFN.extension</code>. Two
problems:
(1) Doing "." + ext is just a waste - it's really not needed.
(2) If someone only checks for the extension, without adding the "." part,
he can accidentally think that fnamedel is a deletion file ..

I'd like to patch this, but want to validate with the community before I
create an issue. Making it public is trivial. Changing the extension name is
more problematic for back-compat, but I think currently it's just wrong ...
Unless we come up w/ new names for the extensions, which is annoying. Can we
sacrifice back-compat for this thing?

Thanks,
Shai

--001636c5a49f78f28304803ed98e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<br><br>I&#39;ve noticed that IFN is package private, i=
ncluding its constants and methods. Any reason why not make it public? I ne=
ed to create my own Directory, and would like to query whether a file is &#=
39;my file&#39; or Lucene&#39;s file. Getting access to the extensions can =
help. Currently I have to put my code in o.a.l package, which I prefer not =
to.<br>
<br>Also, I think the constants could be wrong in some situations. They onl=
y include the extension itself, w/o the &quot;.&quot; part. That leads to m=
any places in the code where I see this &lt;code&gt;fname + &quot;.&quot; +=
 IFN.extension&lt;/code&gt;. Two problems:<br>
(1) Doing &quot;.&quot; + ext is just a waste - it&#39;s really not needed.=
<br>(2) If someone only checks for the extension, without adding the &quot;=
.&quot; part, he can accidentally think that fnamedel is a deletion file ..=
<br>
<br>I&#39;d like to patch this, but want to validate with the community bef=
ore I create an issue. Making it public is trivial. Changing the extension =
name is more problematic for back-compat, but I think currently it&#39;s ju=
st wrong ... Unless we come up w/ new names for the extensions, which is an=
noying. Can we sacrifice back-compat for this thing?<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>Shai<br></div>

--001636c5a49f78f28304803ed98e--