[
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
