> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/08/2006 20:32:20: > > Heh... interfaces strike again. > > > > Well then since we *know* that no one has their own implementation > > (because they would not have been able to register it), we > should be > > able to safely upgrade the interface to a class (anyone > want to supply > > a patch?) > > > > -Yonik > > I'd be happy to do supply this patch - unless someone already > works on it (Oliver?).
I was intending to do this but perhaps this is not needed given your following comments. > I have one more comment on the cache implementation. It feels > to me somewhat not right that a static system wide object > (FieldCache.DEFAULT) is managing the field caching for all > the indexReaders in the JVM (possibly of different indexes), > when in fact there is no dependency/relation/cooperation > between the different indexReaders, cache wise. It seems > cleaner and simpler to have FieldCacheImpl take care of a > single IndexReader, and so have that cache "belong" to the > indexReader. > This would make the cache implementation simpler. > Synchronization would only need to be on field values. This > way we also get rid of the WeakHashMap (which, btw, I never > got to fully trust). This sounds like a much nicer solution than what I was proposing. I'm still happy to produce a patch if that would be helpful? Cheers, Oliver --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
