[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12756898#action_12756898 ]
Yonik Seeley edited comment on LUCENE-1919 at 9/17/09 6:38 PM: --------------------------------------------------------------- edit: collision w/ robert. Still wonder if it's safe to get rid of that second clone()... the combinations are mind-bending. was (Author: ysee...@gmail.com): Robert, you would need to handle the incrementToken() case too in next() - that's actually where the bug occured in the Solr test. {code} if (supportedMethods.hasIncrementToken) { tokenWrapper.delegate = new Token(); return incrementToken() ? ((Token) tokenWrapper.delegate.clone()) : null; {code} Could we remove the clone()? not sure... > Analysis back compat break > -------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-1919 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1919 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Bug > Reporter: Yonik Seeley > Fix For: 2.9 > > Attachments: LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch, LUCENE-1919.patch > > > Old and new style token streams don't mix well. -- 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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org