ok great ! I'll create an issue and work out a patch.
Shai On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think performance is the issue here, but rather correctness. > Someone > > cannot just ask filename.endsWith(DELETION_EXT) as files like "file1del" > > would match as well. So whenever you make such check, you need to add > ".". > > Again, not performance, but correctness. > > I see. To address this we could create a new method on IFN > (matchesExtension?), so one should never use string ops on IFN's > constants? > > > If we make it public, then we can document that clearly. I don't mind if > we > > stay w/o the ".". I just thought that we can correct it, and gain few > ticks > > of performance as a side effect. But I don't want to argue about it :). > > > > So do you agree to change it to public? I can do that and also make sure > > Lucene's code always calls segmentFileName ... > > OK let's leave the extensions as they are (no dots), make it public, > and fix Lucene to always use IFNs methods when working with index file > names? Thanks! > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
