From java-dev-return-39119-apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Wed Sep 02 20:37:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 18801 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2009 20:37:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Sep 2009 20:37:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 37659 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2009 20:37:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 37584 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2009 20:37:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 37576 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2009 20:37:56 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:37:56 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:37:53 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7592234C1E7 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1059503579.1251923852881.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Uwe Schindler (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1877) Use NativeFSLockFactory as default for new API (direct ctors & FSDir.open) In-Reply-To: <1114213004.1251656973048.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12750650#action_12750650 ] Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1877: --------------------------------------- bq. This is neat, but I don't think we should advertise it? Definitely not. b.q. Ie, it's unsupported to mix different LockFactory impls. EG, in this case, the reverse is not true, right? Exactly. > Use NativeFSLockFactory as default for new API (direct ctors & FSDir.open) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-1877 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1877 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Javadocs > Reporter: Mark Miller > Assignee: Uwe Schindler > Fix For: 2.9 > > Attachments: LUCENE-1877.patch, LUCENE-1877.patch, LUCENE-1877.patch > > > A user requested we add a note in IndexWriter alerting the availability of NativeFSLockFactory (allowing you to avoid retaining locks on abnormal jvm exit). Seems reasonable to me - we want users to be able to easily stumble upon this class. The below code looks like a good spot to add a note - could also improve whats there a bit - opening an IndexWriter does not necessarily create a lock file - that would depend on the LockFactory used. > {code}

Opening an IndexWriter creates a lock file for the directory in use. Trying to open > another IndexWriter on the same directory will lead to a > {@link LockObtainFailedException}. The {@link LockObtainFailedException} > is also thrown if an IndexReader on the same directory is used to delete documents > from the index.

{code} > Anyone remember why NativeFSLockFactory is not the default over SimpleFSLockFactory? -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org