I noticed that Vector and Hashtable are fairly widely used in Lucene
both within classes and in their API. Looking at it, it appears that
synchronization is inconsistent and that the classes were used more as
a collection rather than for its sync.
For example, I frequently see something like the following:
for (int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) {
Object o = v.getElementAt(i);
}
Since Java 1.2, Vector implements List and Hashtable implements Map.
When a synchronized List or Map is needed, it can be wrapped with
Collections.synchronizeList(...) and Collections.synchronizedMap(...).
Am I missing something? Is there a reason for using Vector and
Hashtable?
Replacing the internal usage is trivial. It's usage in the API is not
very hard to replace, but it may break backward compatibility.
IIRC that all the methods that return Vector or Hashtable are all
package protected. I presume that this means that the method is
private to Lucene (though we all know how to cheat this:) and that
these can be change easily.
When they are used as a parameter, they can be safely replaced with
List and Map. If the method or class is final, then there would be no
break in backward compatibility. If not final, then it breaks
derivation but not usage.
I was surprised to see that Query uses it for the list of clauses and
also as a super for a class.
Since we are talking about going to 2.4 and the plan is to get to 3.0
shortly after that, this is the time to deprecate it's usage in a the
API.
-- DM Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
