On 6/9/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Are there any objections to replacing BitSet with OpenBitSet in BitDocSet?
: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-15
+1
... but I'd feel better about it if there were static utility methods
for converting from BitSet<=>OpenBitSet
That might be OK.
so that BitDocSet could continue
to have deprecated constructors that take in a BitSet (and could continue
to impliment getBits():BitSet)
Those should be fairly straight forward right? ...
I had considered it, but I think the dangers might outweigh the benefits.
I'd almost rather have someones code break and have an easy way for
them to fix it rather than silently slow it down by an order of
magnitude.
(were you planing on changing the declaration of DocSet.getBits() to
return OpenBitSet?)
Yes, I think so.
My only other question about the code in SOLR-15 was wether or not some of
those low level utilities like "pop_xor(long[],long[],int,int):long"
should be protected/private?
It's a library developers class... too many times I have wanted to do
something as efficiently as something in the Java standard library,
only to find out that the needed methods are package protected. In
this case, the downside is that it messes up the JavaDoc a bit though.
Still, most users shouldn't be even looking at this class right?
-Yonik
