I'm not looking at the code now, but I believe this is because those Strings are interned, and I believe they are interned precisely so that this (faster) comparison can be done.
Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share ----- Original Message ---- From: poeta simbolista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:47:36 PM Subject: FieldCacheImpl mistake? Hi guys, I have been diving into the FieldCacheImpl code. I have seen sth on actual version: Revision 488908 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] Modified Wed Dec 20 03:47:09 2006 UTC (8 weeks ago) by yonik File length: 13425 byte(s) that I wonder if it's not totally right, or if it is, I would like to know why. In the creation of eeach cache (Int, Float, String) there is a String comparison using != instead of equals method: if (term==null || term.field() != field) break; I hope this can be useful... though i have used the code and it seems to work perfectly. Cheers -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FieldCacheImpl-mistake--tf3228683.html#a8969965 Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
