[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1837?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12746621#action_12746621
]
Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1837:
-------------------------------------
It won't revert the whole issue. Weight still an abstract class, the sub reader
with the doc still the reader passed rather than top level reader.
The only revert:
Because TermWeight tried to take index level stats from the reader, we passed
that searcher (to make the TermWeight explain behavior like it was when we
passed top level reader) - its the only place its used currently. But thats
illegal now and it was illegal before.
You cannot count on having access to the entire index through a Searcher - else
we break MultiSearcher and remote use.
So passing that Searcher is a recipe for illegal abuse. Same with the other
issue Tim brought up - though if we end up passing an IndexSearcher there with
all kinds of warnings to abuse at your own peril - I guess we could here.
I'm not sure I like it because we encourage code that doesn't work correctly
with MultiSearcher. I think if we wan't to go down that road, we should
probably try to move away from support remote and multisearcher.
> Remove Searcher from explain and idf/maxDoc info from explain
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1837
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1837
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Mark Miller
> Assignee: Mark Miller
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> these changes (starting with the TermWeight idf/maxDoc info) were illegal IMO
> - I think they need to be rolled back/out.
--
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
