Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67339 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2007 08:38:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2007 08:38:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 50335 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2007 08:38:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 50308 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2007 08:38:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 50297 invoked by uid 99); 15 Feb 2007 08:38:39 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [169.229.70.167] (HELO rescomp.berkeley.edu) (169.229.70.167) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:29 -0800 Received: by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix, from userid 1007) id C67455B774; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82827F403 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:38:08 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Hostetter To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: FieldCacheImpl not "extendible" In-Reply-To: <8967953.post@talk.nabble.com> Message-ID: References: <8967953.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org : I have been diving into the code and I don't see why the class : FieldCacheImpl is not extendible. It is not defined as a public class... : though, I would like to be able to subclass it to change a slight bit. : : Why is it defined like that? I don't know that there is any particular reason ... even if you could subclass it, you won't be able to replace the static instance used by the core Lucene code because it's in the FieldCache interface. your dest bet if you want to reuse functinality for your own code would be to decorate it. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org