Sounds like I need to cut that out. Since caching is built into the public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader) method, I don't see a way to deprecate that, which means I'll just cut it out and document it in CHANGES.txt. Anyone who wants QueryFilter caching will be able to get the caching back by wrapping the QueryFilter in your CachingWrapperFilter.
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2007 7:38:00 PM Subject: Re: Caching in QueryFilter - why? CachingWrapperFilter came along after QueryFilter. I think I added CachingWrapperFilter when I realized that every Filter should have the capability to be cached without having to implement it. So, the only reason is "legacy". I'm perfectly fine with removing the caching from QueryFilter in a future major release. Erik On Apr 4, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at LUCENE-853, so I also looked at CachingWrapperFilter > and then at QueryFilter. I noticed QueryFilter does its own BitSet > caching, and the caching part of its code is nearly identical to > the code in CachingWrapperFilter. > > Why is that? Is there a good reason for that? > > Thanks, > Otis > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
