You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by "Robert Muir (Commented) (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2012/03/13 12:51:38 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3866) Make
CompositeReader.getSequentialSubReaders() and the corresponding
IndexReaderContext methods return unmodifiable List
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3866?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13228335#comment-13228335 ]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3866:
-------------------------------------
Thanks for opening!
{quote}
The binary search of reader-ids inside BaseCompositeReader can still be done with the internal protected array,
{quote}
That's unaffected here right? Because starts[] is a separate problem. Why isnt this private? I made it private,
only MultiPassIndexSplitter.FakeDeleteIndexReader is affected. In my opinion we should fix this too, the fix would
be to just have a protected method in BaseComposite: int getDocStart(int readerIndex). Between this and readerIndex(),
subclasses then have all they need.
> Make CompositeReader.getSequentialSubReaders() and the corresponding IndexReaderContext methods return unmodifiable List<R extends IndexReader>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3866
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3866
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> Since Lucene 2.9 we have the method getSequentialSubReader() returning IndexReader[]. Based on hardly-to-debug errors in user's code, Robert and me realized that returning an array from a public API is an anti-pattern. If the array is intended to be modifiable (like byte[] in terms,...), it is fine to use arrays in public APIs, but not, if the array must be protected from modification. As IndexReaders are 100% unmodifiable in trunk code (no deletions,...), the only possibility to corrumpt the reader is by modifying the array returned by getSequentialSubReaders(). We should prevent this.
> The same theoretically applies to FieldCache, too - but the party that is afraid of performance problems is too big to fight against that :(
> For getSequentialSubReaders there is no performance problem at all. The binary search of reader-ids inside BaseCompositeReader can still be done with the internal protected array, but public APIs should expose only a unmodifiable List. The same applies to leaves() and children() in IndexReaderContext. This change to list would also allow to make CompositeReader and CompositeReaderContext Iterable<R extends IndexReader>, so some loops would look nice.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org