I think you are right that those field copies are not necessary.
Le mar. 11 avr. 2017 à 06:06, Trejkaz <trej...@trypticon.org> a écrit :
> Hi all.
>
> Something queer I found while looking at QueryNode implementations is
> this sort of thing:
>
> @Override
> public FieldQueryNode cloneTree() throws CloneNotSupportedException {
> FieldQueryNode fqn = (FieldQueryNode) super.cloneTree();
> fqn.begin = this.begin;
> fqn.end = this.end;
> fqn.field = this.field;
> fqn.text = this.text;
> fqn.positionIncrement = this.positionIncrement;
>
> return fqn;
> }
>
> I guess what I don't get is the point of all these field copies, because:
>
> * super.cloneTree() seems to call QueryNodeImpl#cloneTree()
> * QueryNodeImpl#cloneTree seems to call Object#clone()
> * Object#clone() seems to already copy all primitives and
> references (a "shallow copy")
>
> So to me it looks like the query node classes are doing a lot of
> pedalling, but that the gears aren't really connected to the wheels,
> and that classes should only override these if they have a more
> complex object which isn't already taken care of automatically.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> TX
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
