[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1687?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12722204#action_12722204
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-1687:
--------------------------------------
bq. And Yonik, if you're argument is b/c Solr uses it, I will change it. It's
like 5 lines of code.
Not at all the issue - as you say, it's simple to change in Solr and doesn't
represent a back compat issue to Solr users.
bq. So much for case-by-case back compatibility.
This is entirely case-by-case:
case #1: *adding* methods to FieldCache could technically be viewed as breaking
back compat, but in this specific case it's OK since no one implements
FieldCache.
case #2: *removing* ExtendedFieldCache breaks all applications that *refer* to
ExtendedFieldCache. it should be deprecated first.
> Remove ExtendedFieldCache by rolling functionality into FieldCache
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1687
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1687
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Grant Ingersoll
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> It is silly that we have ExtendedFieldCache. It is a workaround to our
> supposed back compatibility problem. This patch will merge the
> ExtendedFieldCache interface into FieldCache, thereby breaking back
> compatibility, but creating a much simpler API for FieldCache.
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
