You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> on 2004/07/20 20:22:03 UTC
VOTE: Change Token to public
I'm voting, based on discussions on lucene-user, to make Token public.
+1
Any objections? Discussion?
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Change Token to public
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:47 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> Erik Hatcher wrote:
>> I'm voting, based on discussions on lucene-user, to make Token
>> public. +1
>
> I think you mean to make Token non-final, in which case I'm +1 too.
Oops, yes, I mean non-final.
> Probably we should also make the accessors non-final, make the fields
> private and add setters for some (or all) of the fields. This will
> also require a few changes to other classes in the analysis package
> which access the currently package private fields, making them instead
> use accessors. In short, we need a diff, complete with javadoc
> comments.
Also, I implicitly intended for the changes you mention to take place
for changes to the fields of Token. Sorry, I should have specified
that.
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Change Token to public
Posted by Doug Cutting <cu...@apache.org>.
Erik Hatcher wrote:
> I'm voting, based on discussions on lucene-user, to make Token public. +1
I think you mean to make Token non-final, in which case I'm +1 too.
Probably we should also make the accessors non-final, make the fields
private and add setters for some (or all) of the fields. This will also
require a few changes to other classes in the analysis package which
access the currently package private fields, making them instead use
accessors. In short, we need a diff, complete with javadoc comments.
John, would you like to submit such a patch?
In general, things are expedited by high-quality patches accompanied by
a description of the problems solved by the patch. A simple request to
make more stuff non-final is too vague to be acted on.
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org