[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4276?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13425787#comment-13425787
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-4276:
--------------------------------------
bq. > No, we still need an override. We do not always know best.
bq. What does this mean? if you don't supply this option, loops are broken and
it creates corrupt indexes.
You're still assuming that we know the best and only fixes for unknown and
unseen applications using Lucene in different ways. We don't.
First versions of workarounds can often be more crude (i.e. don't JIT this
class or method at all) and later refinements can be more targeted and higher
performing, and depending on the customer may even be in temporary binary patch
form. There are probably other cases I haven't even thought of yet - which was
really the point in the first place. An unconditional user override remains
critical.
> refuse to execute on broken corrupting jvms
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4276
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4276
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-4276.patch, LUCENE-4276.patch
>
>
> There are some jvms where we know lucene does not work at all and will just
> produce things like corrupt indexes.
> We should detect this in a static block of Constants.java and refuse to run
> at all.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
