[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5440?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13897786#comment-13897786
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-5440:
------------------------------------
I don't mind if we do it only in trunk. However, this affects only the Java
API, which looks pretty low-level and expert to me? Given that and that
migrating from OpenBitSet to FixedBitSet is trivial, wouldn't it be OK to port
it to 4x as well?
I'm thinking about e.g. merging changes from trunk to 4x, which will be much
easier if the two are in sync. Of course this alone doesn't justify an API
break, but if it's such low-level and expert API, I wonder if we shouldn't do
this in 4x as well.
Having said all that, you obviously understand Solr API better than me and know
how it's used by users, so if you think we absolutely shouldn't do this in 4x,
we'll do it only in trunk.
> Add LongFixedBitSet and replace usage of OpenBitSet
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5440
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5440
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core/search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Shai Erera
> Attachments: LUCENE-5440-solr.patch, LUCENE-5440.patch,
> LUCENE-5440.patch, LUCENE-5440.patch, LUCENE-5440.patch, LUCENE-5440.patch
>
>
> Spinoff from here: http://lucene.markmail.org/thread/35gw3amo53dsqsqj. I
> wrote a LongFixedBitSet which behaves like FixedBitSet, only allows managing
> more than 2.1B bits. It overcome some issues I've encountered with
> OpenBitSet, such as the use of set/fastSet as well the implementation of
> DocIdSet. I'll post a patch shortly and describe it in more detail.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
