I think most of Vector (or Hashtable) references are leftovers from the pre-Java Collections era, that's all. I doubt we'd be able to get much juice out of move unsynchronized Java Collections, although I'd like to see them for the same reason as Yonik.
Otis ----- Original Message ---- From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2006 6:35:03 AM Subject: Re: Vector On 5/6/06, karl wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are a couple of Vector:s in the code. Is it really necessary to > use this expensive thread safe artifact from the dark ages? I've wondered that myself ... seeing "Vector" in the code does hurt my eyes a little :-) It's just one of those things that's never the highest priority I guess. I think in many/most of these places it's unnecessary to have a synchronized collection at all. For examile, the one in Document for instance will be used often: List fields = new Vector(); Since the reference type is actually "List" it looks like the use of a synchronized collection is deliberate. Can someone think why this is needed? -Yonik http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
