[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535743
]
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-743:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
As for reopen() I'd like to go with Hoss' suggestion for now and add warning
comments to reopen() saying that using an re-opened IndexReader with
closeOldReader==false for write operations will result in an undefined behavior.
{quote}
How about just defining the behavior such that any pending changes are flushed.
That would make it more useful because you could then reopen readers you used
for deletes. An alternative would be a method to explicitly flush changes on a
reader, giving one the ability to then reopen it, but I like the former better
since it avoids adding another API call.
> IndexReader.reopen()
> --------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-743
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-743
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Otis Gospodnetic
> Assignee: Michael Busch
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.3
>
> Attachments: IndexReaderUtils.java, lucene-743-take2.patch,
> lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch, MyMultiReader.java,
> MySegmentReader.java, varient-no-isCloneSupported.BROKEN.patch
>
>
> This is Robert Engels' implementation of IndexReader.reopen() functionality,
> as a set of 3 new classes (this was easier for him to implement, but should
> probably be folded into the core, if this looks good).
--
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]
