So, if there was a caching filter implemented like yours, but with the WeakHashMap cache like QueryFilter, would you use it instead of what you've done?
I think it would depend on whether the cache key's are independant of IndexReaders (i.e. an implementation that's not implemented in the same manner as the QueryFilter by using an IndexReader as a cache key (or part thereof). This is because I open multiple IndexReaders against a single index which would cause (false) cache misses. If that wasn't the case then I think I'd be ok with using it, irregardless of my preference to use our own cache architecture. I'd definitely use it if I could provide the backing map via a setMap() method or the like.
I'm in agreement with you about where the caching should be. Would anyone object to such an implementation added to Lucene's core?
It's fine by me but I'm only one user :)
Regards,
Bruce Ritchie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
