IMHO, if I'm forced to write a by-pass filter to re-use a filter instead
of copy/pasting it, I think we are getting way off the Decorator
Pattern. Its not simple anymore. I bet you have 9 chances out of 10 that
a dev. will copy/paste that code before writing a by-pass filter.
Extending the functionality of a filter should not be something
difficult. And having everyone write their own bypass filter seems
really annoying. Imagine all those people having to write the by-pass
filter.
We should include such a filter in Lucene natively and add in the
JavaDocs of the filter the mention that you can extend them with it to
avoid people copy/pasting code.
If you want I can cook up a draft to get things started.
Daniel Shane
Ted Dunning wrote:
Copy/paste. Clearly Uwe and others were worried that users wouldn't
be able to extend these classes compatibly.
My own opinion is that this causes worse problems with back
compatibility because people wind up copying code instead of calling
it. You may be able to extend an abstract class to minimize your work.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:33 AM, Daniel Shane
<sha...@lexum.umontreal.ca <mailto:sha...@lexum.umontreal.ca>> wrote:
Does anyone else see a way of doing this that is simple?
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
