The patch that Java lucene included for this bug in the 2.9 branch does NOT include generics in the fix, they are commented out. I think they only did that because the version of java that Lucene 2.9 targets doesn't support generics, or at least doesn't support generics in the way Lucene needed them to perform (3.x uses generics extensively).
That being said, I personally don't see any reason generics couldn't be used internally, provided the behavior and API is the same as 2.9 Lucene. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > I'm attempting to recreate the patch for 433, that digy has created for > 2.9.4g. He obviously uses some generics, is it a problem if internally I > use generics for the issues? or should I be using non generic equivalents? > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-433 > > > > Because we are compiling against 4.0, it's not really a problem in that > regard, but I dunno if people feel like it should be there > > > > ~P
