[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1333?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12621246#action_12621246
]
Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-1333:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
Actually I think one should never pass null to next(Token) API - ie a source
token stream need not check for null.
{quote}
Funny I was about to comment on the same thing...
In fact when the reuse API was introduced I believe null was suppose to mean -
"nothing to be reused, please just create your own".
In case of a producer that cannot reuse - say it creates its own implementation
of Token - then there is no point in creating tokens by the consumer that will
never be reused.
But this also meant that in all the common cases, all tokenizers would need an
additional if() to verify that the reusable token is not null. Not so nice.
So yes, I agree with you, just need to clarify this in
TokenStream.nextToken(Token)'s javadocs.
> Token implementation needs improvements
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1333
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1333
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Analysis
> Affects Versions: 2.3.1
> Environment: All
> Reporter: DM Smith
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.4
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1333-analysis.patch, LUCENE-1333-analyzers.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-core.patch, LUCENE-1333-highlighter.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-instantiated.patch, LUCENE-1333-lucli.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-memory.patch, LUCENE-1333-miscellaneous.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-queries.patch, LUCENE-1333-snowball.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-wikipedia.patch, LUCENE-1333-wordnet.patch,
> LUCENE-1333-xml-query-parser.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333.patch,
> LUCENE-1333.patch, LUCENE-1333a.txt
>
>
> This was discussed in the thread (not sure which place is best to reference
> so here are two):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-java-dev/200805.mbox/[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> or to see it all at once:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-dev/62851
> Issues:
> 1. JavaDoc is insufficient, leading one to read the code to figure out how to
> use the class.
> 2. Deprecations are incomplete. The constructors that take String as an
> argument and the methods that take and/or return String should *all* be
> deprecated.
> 3. The allocation policy is too aggressive. With large tokens the resulting
> buffer can be over-allocated. A less aggressive algorithm would be better. In
> the thread, the Python example is good as it is computationally simple.
> 4. The parts of the code that currently use Token's deprecated methods can be
> upgraded now rather than waiting for 3.0. As it stands, filter chains that
> alternate between char[] and String are sub-optimal. Currently, it is used in
> core by Query classes. The rest are in contrib, mostly in analyzers.
> 5. Some internal optimizations can be done with regard to char[] allocation.
> 6. TokenStream has next() and next(Token), next() should be deprecated, so
> that reuse is maximized and descendant classes should be rewritten to
> over-ride next(Token)
> 7. Tokens are often stored as a String in a Term. It would be good to add
> constructors that took a Token. This would simplify the use of the two
> together.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
