On Wednesday 02 January 2008 08:03:48 Chris Hostetter wrote: > 1) there is a semi-articulated goal of moving away from "under the > coveres" weakref caching to more explicit and controllable caching ...
YES! BTW why havin caching been removed from QueryFilter at all? Isn't caching the only sense of a Filter? I can't think of another one... > it's not such a big deal in this case since it only comes into play if the > user uses th eclass -- but it would still be nice if user code had a way > to actually monitor/manipulate the cache. (it's a much bigger issue > with things like FieldCache, see also LUCENE-831) Yes, I know FieldCache...encountered some queries consuming some 200+ MBytes... :-\ > 2) IndexReader implementations are not currently (and have never really > been) required to return anything useful from the directory() method ... > in the trunk, classes like MultiReader will throw an UnSupOpEx if > directory() is called. in older versions of Lucene, MultiReader would > return the directory of the first sub IndexReader it was using -- which > would result in some pretty frustrating cache key collisions if you tried > to use the directory instead of the IndexReader itself. Well...implementations really should implement their interface.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
