> That is wanted! We want to test SlowMultiReaderWrapper and verify that it > really behaves like a full conformant AtomicReader. Because of that we > sometimes war with it. The fix Robert did is fine and is identical to the one > we did in the past. As this is no real Lucene usage pattern, not detecting > the obvious cache violation is wanted here. Ok. I was just wondering about the fact that a toplevel readercontext is given as argument to Collector#setNextReader(). It confused me, but as you said it is no real Lucene usage pattern.
> > For incorrect Lucene usage (like getting a field cache entry on a slow > wrapper), we can still warn the user. Buf for tests this insanity is wanted > by the wrapping. I think the SlowCompositeReaderWrapper jdocs warns the user already enough, so that is fine for now. Martijn --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
