The previous email spelled out the details pretty well. I don't have
time to write the code at this time. I was only making a comment that
I thought your patch was too involved for what it does and there are
better ways of doing it (which it seems other have had the same
sentiment).
On Jul 12, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Ning Li wrote:
I proposed a design of "BufferedWriter" in a previous email that
would not have this limited. It is similar to what other have
suggested, which is to handle the buffering in a higher-level class
and level IndexWriter alone.
Could you spell out the details, or better, submit the patch? So that
we could compare the two approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
