[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14566460#comment-14566460
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-6508:
--------------------------------------------
I love the "changed by an external force" exception!
Nice javadocs catch about now anciently wrong "IndexReader holding a write
lock"!
I wonder if we even need to pass a lock name anymore? Maybe it can
just be Directory.obtainWriteLock()?
I love how you implemented the lock timeout (wrapping with a sleeper,
with awesome "This is not a good idea." javadocs) but I really think
we should just remove the timeout: I don't see a valid use case
... but we can do this separately.
The new BaseLockFactoryTestCase refactoring is awesome.
I also love the LockValidatingDirectoryWrapper approach; hopefully the
additional IO ops per desctructive op is not too costly on
indexing/NRT reopen latency.
> Simplify Directory/lock api
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6508
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6508
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Attachments: LUCENE-6508-deadcode1.patch, LUCENE-6508.patch,
> LUCENE-6508.patch
>
>
> See LUCENE-6507 for some background. In general it would be great if you can
> just acquire an immutable lock (or you get a failure) and then you close that
> to release it.
> Today the API might be too much for what is needed by IW.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
