[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-340?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12835057#action_12835057
]
Michael Garski commented on LUCENENET-340:
------------------------------------------
+1 for me on this patch, as TextReader is below StreamReader I don't see this
causing any breaking changes to anyone's existing code.
I don't think there is any real reason for StreamReader as opposed to
TextReader... my guess is that it came as part of the java conversion rather
than an intentional decision.
> Fieldable.ReaderValue should return TextReader not StreamReader
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENENET-340
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-340
> Project: Lucene.Net
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Andy Pook
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENENET-340-Filedable.ReaderValue.patch
>
>
> Using the more abstract type makes creating custome Fieldables easier as they
> can use other TextReader descendants (such as StringReader).
> Internally the main use seems to be from DocInverterPerField (eg line 125)
> where it is used via a local member of type TextReader.
> The original Java uses the abstract Reader type. Is there a reason why the
> dotNet conversion uses StreamReader here while using TextReader elsewhere?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
