[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4371?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14000706#comment-14000706
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-4371:
---------------------------------------
Looks cool.
I was a bit confused about ByteBufferIndexInput, because this one already has
{{slice(...)}}. We should add {{@Override}} here, because it now implements
abstract method.
I still have to think if close works as expected, but this did not change as
before. Maybe this is my misunderstanding, but it is really confusing:
Slices are always closed by consumer code (not like clones) or not? If yes, all
looks fine, but we should document this: clones do not need to be closed, but
what about slices? I think we use the same FileDescriptor, so we also don't
need to close the slices?
> consider refactoring slicer to indexinput.slice
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4371
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4371
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Attachments: LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch, LUCENE-4371.patch,
> LUCENE-4371.patch
>
>
> From LUCENE-4364:
> {quote}
> In my opinion, we should maybe check, if we can remove the whole Slicer in
> all Indexinputs? Just make the slice(...) method return the current
> BufferedIndexInput-based one. This could be another issue, once this is in.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
