[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3464?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13115030#comment-13115030
]
Ryan McKinley commented on LUCENE-3464:
---------------------------------------
bq. the method implies that the reopen will happen "in place". And I've seen
users try to simply do IR.reopen().
funny, that's what i thought it did!
If you have to use the results value, should it be:
getFreshReader(oldReader)
or something?
without the 'get' it seems like it operates on the reader itself, not the
return value.
> 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
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3464.patch
>
>
> 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.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
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]
