[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6507?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14562640#comment-14562640
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-6507:
---------------------------------------
Changing the behaviour of this already existing method would be an unexpected
change, code outside Lucene would fall over that (like Infinispan
directory,...). So we should break hard and invent a new name for the method,
especially if we change behaviour. So code that wants to lock a directory fails
to compile. I think we have 2 possibilities:
- newLockInstance() with the current behaviour
- lockDirectory() or aquireLock() or whatever to do the actual locking.
- makeLock() should be removed so existing code fails to compile
I am sorry that I did not fix that before release of Lucene 5.0. This was on my
list but I missed to fix the name or change behaviour.
This change here should also be reflected in the LockFactory class (not just in
directory)...
> Directory#makeLock is trappy
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6507
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6507
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
>
> the lock API in Lucene is super trappy since the lock that we return form
> this API must first be obtained and if we can't obtain it the lock should not
> be closed since we might ie. close the underlying channel in the NativeLock
> case which releases all lock for this file on some operating systems. I think
> the makeLock method should try to obtain and only return a lock if we
> successfully obtained it. Not sure if it's possible everywhere but we should
> at least make the documentation clear here.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
