[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9660?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15607455#comment-15607455
]
Judith Silverman commented on SOLR-9660:
----------------------------------------
Christine, I have no suggestions about the failing test but here are a couple
of questions. Is it necessary to deprecate the GroupingSpecification accessors
like getGroupOffset(), rather than simply modifying the definitions as you did?
They could still be useful as wrappers. Not that I feel strongly about it, but
your answer could tell me something about Solr philosophy.
On a related note: now that you have added new SortSpec constructors, could you
rewrite the old ones in terms of the new ones using the initial values of num
and offset as the last two arguments:
public SortSpec(Sort sort, List<SchemaField> fields) {
this(sort, fields, num, offset );
}
? I missed that in my SOLR-6203 patch but it jumped out at me now. Similarly,
the new weightSortSpec() function could be defined in terms of a 4-parameter
version: weightSortSpec(SortSpec originalSortSpec, Sort nullEquivalent, int
count, int offset) to make it more self-contained.
Thanks,
Judith
> in GroupingSpecification factor [group](sort|offset|limit) into
> [group](sortSpec)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-9660
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9660
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Task
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Christine Poerschke
> Assignee: Christine Poerschke
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: SOLR-9660.patch
>
>
> This is split out and adapted from and towards the SOLR-6203 changes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
