DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22498>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22498 [PATCH] Bugs in configuration-handling in LuceneIndexTransformer [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-08-19 04:00 ------- Thanks Joerg The null test is indeed useless. I didn't write this bit, but looking at the code it seems the atts variable will always point to an AttributesImpl object, since a new AttributesImpl is created when this IndexHelperField is created and pushed onto the stack. So I simply removed the test. The fact that the code has always worked and never given an NPE is also good evidence of this. :-) I asked Vadim just yesterday about the odd comment "we don't need all this stuff" and he didn't remember ... I think it may refer to the fact that these parameters are optional, since the same parameters can be supplied at config- time, or in the input document, or not at all. So the Parameters passed to the setup() method may be empty. I removed the comment and added some more comments to the javadoc comment for the method. In summary: slightly tidier now, but no functional changes. Con
