[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16433981#comment-16433981 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-8248: -------------------------------------------- Ahh thank you for the new patch; it looks great! > I also had to add these overrides to {{NoMergePolicy}} in order to get its >test to pass since it verifies that all methods are overridden? Ahh that's great it tests for that; actually, could you please add exactly that same test for {{FilterMergePolicy}} (and I think remove it from the test for {{NoMergePolicy}}). This way if we add new methods to {{MergePolicy}} the test failure will remind us to update {{FilterMergePolicy}} too. > Make MergePolicy.setMaxCFSSegmentSizeMB final > --------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-8248 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8248 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Wish > Components: core/index > Reporter: Mike Sokolov > Priority: Minor > Attachments: LUCENE-8248.patch, MergePolicy.patch > > > MergePolicy.getMaxCFSSegmentSizeMB is final, but the corresponding setter is > not, which means that overriding it with anything other than a trivial > delegation can only lead to confusion. > The patch makes the method final and removes the trivial implementations from > MergePolicyWrapper and NoMergePolicy. > [~mikemccand] also pointed out that the class name is nonstandard for similar > adapter classes in Lucene, which are usually Filter*.java. Personally I was > looking for MergePolicyAdapter, but if there is a prevailing convention here > around Filter, does it make sense to change this class's name to > FilterMergePolicy? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org