On May 30, 2009, at 13:27, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
Is there a valid use case? It seems like it might be a tricky
method, because its an IndexReader property and not the index.
But it's just a flag passed in
If you know it's read only and that there are no deletes, can't you
avoid isDeleted all together?
I'm mostly thinking it's useful for libraries that take in a Reader.
A user should probably technically treat read-only/non-read-only the
same because it does not imply a different IndexReader didn't make
changes/do deletes?
It doesn't sync deletes, but should you use the API any differently?
I don't see it hurting anything of course, but is there a real use
case?
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
OK, I'll do it.
On May 30, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
Makes sense!
Mike
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]
> wrote:
Does it make sense to add isReadOnly() to IndexReader such that
one can
easily introspect whether a Reader is read only?
-Grant
---
------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
