[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3464?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13114656#comment-13114656
]
Doron Cohen commented on LUCENE-3464:
-------------------------------------
I liked reopen()... (but also like returning null in case there's nothing
newer...)
If the name is going to change, two additional names to consider:
* newest()
* newer()
For "newest()" I think current behavior of returning "this" makes sense when
"this" is the newest.
For "newer()" returning null in that case seems right.
One problem I have with these names is that they both seem to hide the fact
that things are going on down there, when it is required to open a new reader...
> Rename IndexReader.reopen to make it clear that reopen may not happen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3464
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3464
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.5, 4.0
>
>
> Spinoff from LUCENE-3454 where Shai noted this inconsistency.
> IR.reopen sounds like an unconditional operation, which has trapped users in
> the past into always closing the old reader instead of only closing it if the
> returned reader is new.
> I think this hidden maybe-ness is trappy and we should rename it
> (maybeReopen? reopenIfNeeded?).
> In addition, instead of returning "this" when the reopen didn't happen, I
> think we should return null to enforce proper usage of the maybe-ness of this
> API.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
