Sure! shall I fix it on 2.4.1 as well? If so, how soon can we tag a 2.4.2? If not before 2.9, then it doesn't matter, at least to me, if it will be fixed on trunk only.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > Let's just allow null? Can you open an issue? > > Mike > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Shai Erera<ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I have an Analyzer which is given a Config object and when tokenStream or > > reusableTokenStream is called, it generates a TokenStream based on the > > Config settings. I also have a setConfig method on that Analyzer. > setConfig > > calls setPreviousTokenStream(null) so that next time reusableTokenStream > is > > called, it will generate a new one, based on the new Config. > > > > Before CloseableThreadLocal, this worked just fine. But now it fails on > > CTL's assert that the object held by the WeakReference is not null, w/ a > > comment "this cannot be null because we set it ...". > > > > I don't have access to tokenStreams member since it's private, therefore > I > > can't just tokenStream = new CloseableThreadLocal(). Why doesn't > > CloseableThreadLocal allow for null objects? ThreadLocal allows it. Also, > I > > think CTL is not consistent, since when I call set(null) it allows the > call, > > but get() throws an exception. > > > > I can overcome this by setting a new object which its tokenizer and > > tokensteam members are null, and check those instead of the object > returned > > from get(). But I don't think CTL should forbid null, or at least make > sure > > a null cannot be set. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Shai > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
