Hoss, would this work (is this what you said)?
public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException{
return null;
}
public Matcher getMatcher(IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
if(bits() == null) throw new SomeException("Filter must implement at least
one of...");
return new BitsMatcher(bits());
}
and IndexSearcher does not have any logic, just uses getMatcher()
current implementations would work, new as well
----- Original Message ----
From: Hoss Man (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 13 April, 2007 8:01:16 PM
Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-584) Decouple Filter from BitSet
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12488733
]
Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-584:
---------------------------------
I'm still behind on following this issue, but Otis: if you are interested in
moving forward with this, you might consider trying the cahnges i proposed in
my "15/Mar/07 11:06 AM" Comment...
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584#action_12481263
...I think it would keep IndexSearcher a little cleaner, and make it easier for
people to migrate existing Filter's gradually (without requiring extra work for
people writing new "Matcher" style Filters from scratch)
> Decouple Filter from BitSet
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-584
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.0.1
> Reporter: Peter Schäfer
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: bench-diff.txt, bench-diff.txt, BitsMatcher.java,
> Filter-20060628.patch, HitCollector-20060628.patch,
> IndexSearcher-20060628.patch, MatchCollector.java, Matcher.java,
> Matcher20070226.patch, Scorer-20060628.patch, Searchable-20060628.patch,
> Searcher-20060628.patch, Some Matchers.zip, SortedVIntList.java,
> TestSortedVIntList.java
>
>
> {code}
> package org.apache.lucene.search;
> public abstract class Filter implements java.io.Serializable
> {
> public abstract AbstractBitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException;
> }
> public interface AbstractBitSet
> {
> public boolean get(int index);
> }
> {code}
> It would be useful if the method =Filter.bits()= returned an abstract
> interface, instead of =java.util.BitSet=.
> Use case: there is a very large index, and, depending on the user's
> privileges, only a small portion of the index is actually visible.
> Sparsely populated =java.util.BitSet=s are not efficient and waste lots of
> memory. It would be desirable to have an alternative BitSet implementation
> with smaller memory footprint.
> Though it _is_ possibly to derive classes from =java.util.BitSet=, it was
> obviously not designed for that purpose.
> That's why I propose to use an interface instead. The default implementation
> could still delegate to =java.util.BitSet=.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
