[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-793?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12473857
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-793:
-------------------------------------------
Ahh, OK, good question. Yes this a new exception created by this patch.
There are quite a few places (8 actually) where we previously threw an
IOException and I've now changed to a CorruptIndexException. Also
since IOException is checked, there are presumably many catch clauses
out there that would at least catch (yet probably not handle) these
corruption cases now.
All of these cases, plus the IllegalStateException cases, *should* be
exceptionally rare, but I think it's "more" backwards compatible to
leave the base class of the new CorruptIndexException as IOException?
> Javadocs should explain possible causes for IOExceptions
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-793
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-793
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Javadocs
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assigned To: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-793.patch
>
>
> Most methods in Lucene reserve the right to throw an IOException. This can
> occur for nearly all methods from low level problems like wrong permissions,
> transient IO errors, bad hard drive or corrupted file system, corrupted
> index, etc, but for some methods there are also more interesting causes that
> we should try to document.
> Spinoff of this thread:
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/lucene/java-user/44929
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
