lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Garski (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENENET-340) Fieldable.ReaderValue should return TextReader not StreamReader
Date Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:59:27 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12835057#action_12835057
] 

Michael Garski commented on LUCENENET-340:
------------------------------------------

+1 for me on this patch, as TextReader is below StreamReader I don't see this causing any
breaking changes to anyone's existing code.

I don't think there is any real reason for StreamReader as opposed to TextReader... my guess
is that it came as part of the java conversion rather than an intentional decision.

> Fieldable.ReaderValue should return TextReader not StreamReader
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENENET-340
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-340
>             Project: Lucene.Net
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Andy Pook
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENENET-340-Filedable.ReaderValue.patch
>
>
> Using the more abstract type makes creating custome Fieldables easier as they can use
other TextReader descendants (such as StringReader).
> Internally the main use seems to be from DocInverterPerField (eg line 125) where it is
used via a local member of type TextReader.
> The original Java uses the abstract Reader type. Is there a reason why the dotNet conversion
uses StreamReader here while using TextReader elsewhere?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message