[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12536419
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-743:
-------------------------------------------
{quote}
I think we are forced to keep this semantics, for backwards
compatibility. But I don't really think MultiReader/ParallelReader
should actually be this aggressive. Maybe in the future we can add
ctors for MultiReader/ParallelReader that accept a "doClose" boolean
to turn this off.
{quote}
Actually I retract this: it's no longer necessary as long as we change
ensureOpen to assert that RC > 0 instead of closed==false.
I think this is actually a nice unexpected side-effect of using
reference counting: it resolves this overly aggressive behavior of
MultiReader/ParallelReader.
> 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]
