[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12756898#action_12756898
]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-1919 at 9/17/09 6:38 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
edit: collision w/ robert.
Still wonder if it's safe to get rid of that second clone()... the combinations
are mind-bending.
was (Author: [email protected]):
Robert, you would need to handle the incrementToken() case too in next() -
that's actually where the bug occured in the Solr test.
{code}
if (supportedMethods.hasIncrementToken) {
tokenWrapper.delegate = new Token();
return incrementToken() ? ((Token) tokenWrapper.delegate.clone()) : null;
{code}
Could we remove the clone()? not sure...
> Analysis back compat break
> --------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1919
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Yonik Seeley
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch
>
>
> Old and new style token streams don't mix well.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
