I agree it's messy now. I think requiring the writer to be specified on creating the merge policy would make sense. You can't safely share a LMP today across multiple writers, yet the class "pretends" that you can...
You'd also need to deprecate the public methods that take a writer in favor of new methods that don't take one (and use the member instead)? Wanna cons up a patch? Mike On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Shai Erera<ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > While reading LogMergePolicy I noticed that it uses IndexWriter's member and > method arg inconsistently: > 1) Some methods that receive IW as a parameer, do: this.indexWriter = > indexWriter, and then use the member instance. > 2) Others set the member instance, but continue to use the method arg. > 3) Others don't set the member instance at all. > 4) Some use the member, w/ the possibility of hitting NPE (if, say, the > findMerge* methods were not called yet). > > As far as I understand, the member instance is defined just for methods that > need to use IW, but since the class does not require IW to be passed during > construction, they rely on one of the findMerge* methods to set the member > instance to the one they got. Is that right? I guess it is possible for the > same MergePolicy instance to receive different IW instances during its life > span, but is it something we should support? > > Leaving back-compat aside for a moment, if a MP lives within an IndexWriter, > why not require an IW instance to be passed during an MP construction > (passing 'this' for IW own instantiation)? Then we can remove the IW method > arg and rely, safely, on the existence of IW. > > Shai > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
