[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13658) Discuss adding the new "var" construct to the forbidden API list.
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13658?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16896139#comment-16896139
]
Martin Grigorov commented on SOLR-13658:
Hi [~erickerickson],
You didn't provide full snippets so I might have done something in a different
way but the following code compiles and runs fine:
{code:java}
import java.util.Map;
public class Solr13658 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// with var
var kidding = getComplex();
var blivet = kidding.get("one");
var blah = kidding.get("two").get(2);
blah = 55;
System.err.println("blah: " + blah);
// without var
Map> kidding1 = getComplex();
Map blivet1 = kidding1.get("one");
Integer blah1 = kidding1.get("two").get(2);
blah1 = 55;
System.err.println("blah1: " + blah1);
}
private static Map> getComplex() {
return Map.of(
"one", Map.of("1", 1, "11", 11, "111", 111),
"two", Map.of("2", 2, "22", 22, "222", 222)
);
}
}
{code}
and it prints :
{code:java}
blah: 55
blah1: 55
{code}
in both cases _blah_s types are java.lang.Integer
> Discuss adding the new "var" construct to the forbidden API list.
> -
>
> Key: SOLR-13658
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13658
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Wish
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
>Affects Versions: master (9.0)
>Reporter: Erick Erickson
>Assignee: Erick Erickson
>Priority: Major
>
> Personally, I'm strongly against allowing the "var" construct in Lucene/Solr
> code. I think it's a wonderful opportunity to introduce bugs that won't be
> found until runtime as well as making maintainence significantly harder. I
> don't even think for a project like Solr it would save any time overall...
> So let's discuss this ahead of time and see if we can reach a consensus. I'll
> start the discussion off:
> My baseline argument is that for a large complex project, especially ones
> with many different people coding, I want the compiler to give me all the
> help possible. And the "var" construct takes away some of that help.
> I’ve seen this argument go around at least 4 times in my career. The argument
> that “it takes longer to write if you have to type all this stuff” is bogus.
> Last I knew, 80% of the time spent is in maintaining/reading it. So the
> argument “I can write faster” means I can save some fraction of the 20% of
> the time writing the original code but spend many times that figuring out
> what the code is actually doing the other 80% of the time.
> The IDE makes _writing_ this slightly faster, admittedly.
> {code:java}
> Whatever what = new Whatever();
> var kidding = what.getComplex();
> var blivet = kidding.get("stuff");
> {code}
> But once that’s done, if I’m reading the code again I don't have any clue what
> {code:java}
> kidding or blivet
> {code}
> are. Here's the signature for getComplex:
> {code:java}
> Map> getComplex()
> {code}
> I have to go over to the definition (which I admit is easier than it used to
> be in the bad old days, but still) to find out.
> HERE'S THE PART I REALLY OBJECT TO!
> The above I could probably live with, maybe we could get the InteliJ
> developers and see if they can make hover show the inference. What I will
> kick and scream about is introducing bugs that are not found until runtime.
> Even this obvious stupidity fails with a ClassCastException:
> {code:java}
> var corny = new TreeMap();
> corny.put("one", "two");
> corny.get(1);
> {code}
> But it's much worse when using classes from somewhere else. For instance,
> change the underlying class in the first example to return
> {code:java}
> Map>{code}
> .
> This code that used to work now throws an error, _but it compiles_.
> {code:java}
> var kidding = what.getComplex();
> var blivet = kidding.get("stuff");
> var blah = kidding.get("stuff").get(1); // generates ClassCastException:
> class java.lang.String cannot be cast to class java.lang.Integer
> {code}
> So in order to save some time writing (that I claim will be lost multiple
> times over when maintaining the code) we'll introduce run-time errors that
> will take a bunch _more_ time to figure out, and won’t be found during unit
> tests unless and until we have complete code coverage.
> If there's a way to insure that this kind of thing can't get into the code
> and we implement that, I could be persuaded, but let's make that an explicit
> requirement (and find a suitable task for the build system, precommit or
> whatever).
> The floor is open...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)
-
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-8362) Add DocValue support for RangeFields
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16851628#comment-16851628
]
Martin Grigorov commented on LUCENE-8362:
-
[~atris] Off Topic: Why do you prefer working with patches ? It would be much
more convenient to comment on your changes in GitHub Pull Request UI.
One reason I can think of is if you don't have an account at GitHub and you
don't want to create one.
Patches are fine! But with a PR I think more people may join the review.
> Add DocValue support for RangeFields
> -
>
> Key: LUCENE-8362
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8362
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Nicholas Knize
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-8362-approach2.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch,
> LUCENE-8362.patch, LUCENE-8362.patch
>
>
> I'm opening this issue to discuss adding DocValue support to
> {{\{Int|Long|Float|Double\}Range}} field types. Since existing numeric range
> fields already provide the methods for encoding ranges as a byte array I
> think this could be as simple as adding syntactic sugar to existing range
> fields that simply build an instance of {{BinaryDocValues}} using that same
> encoding. I'm envisioning something like
> {{doc.add(IntRange.newDocValuesField("intDV", 100)}} But I'd like to solicit
> other ideas or potential drawbacks to this approach.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13452) Update the lucene-solr build from Ivy+Ant+Maven (shadow build) to Gradle.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13452?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16840508#comment-16840508 ] Martin Grigorov commented on SOLR-13452: OK. I just wanted to mention it since you just started on this migration (Ant -> Gradle). > Update the lucene-solr build from Ivy+Ant+Maven (shadow build) to Gradle. > - > > Key: SOLR-13452 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13452 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) > Components: Build >Reporter: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > I took some things from the great work that Dat did in > [https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/tree/jira/gradle] and took the ball a > little further. > > When working with gradle in sub modules directly, I recommend > [https://github.com/dougborg/gdub] > This gradle branch uses the following plugin for version locking, version > configuration and version consistency across modules: > [https://github.com/palantir/gradle-consistent-versions] > By default, dependencies are not transitive, but there is a special > Configuration for adding dependencies on other project internal modules that > are transitive to their direct external dependencies (their jar libs). > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (SOLR-13452) Update the lucene-solr build from Ivy+Ant+Maven (shadow build) to Gradle.
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13452?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16840069#comment-16840069 ] Martin Grigorov commented on SOLR-13452: Hi. Have you considered using the Gradle Kotlin dialect instead of the Groovy one ? I am not a Gradle person myself but from what I've read it is more type-safe. Recently one of the Groovy/Gradle devs tried to introduce Kotlin dialect to Apache Groovy project (and soon after he decided to leave Groovy). This says a lot! > Update the lucene-solr build from Ivy+Ant+Maven (shadow build) to Gradle. > - > > Key: SOLR-13452 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13452 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Improvement > Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) > Components: Build >Reporter: Mark Miller >Priority: Major > > I took some things from the great work that Dat did in > [https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/tree/jira/gradle] and took the ball a > little further. > > When working with gradle in sub modules directly, I recommend > [https://github.com/dougborg/gdub] > This gradle branch uses the following plugin for version locking, version > configuration and version consistency across modules: > [https://github.com/palantir/gradle-consistent-versions] > By default, dependencies are not transitive, but there is a special > Configuration for adding dependencies on other project internal modules that > are transitive to their direct external dependencies (their jar libs). > -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
