[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12749505#action_12749505
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-1877:
---------------------------------------
It's only the default for new code, clearly documented; deprecated code stays
as it is.
If we will not get this into 2.9, 3.0 will remove the deprecated parts and the
new code (new in 2.9) will change its defaults.
> Improve IndexWriter javadoc on locking
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1877
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1877
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Javadocs
> Reporter: Mark Miller
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1877.patch
>
>
> A user requested we add a note in IndexWriter alerting the availability of
> NativeFSLockFactory (allowing you to avoid retaining locks on abnormal jvm
> exit). Seems reasonable to me - we want users to be able to easily stumble
> upon this class. The below code looks like a good spot to add a note - could
> also improve whats there a bit - opening an IndexWriter does not necessarily
> create a lock file - that would depend on the LockFactory used.
> {code} <p>Opening an <code>IndexWriter</code> creates a lock file for the
> directory in use. Trying to open
> another <code>IndexWriter</code> on the same directory will lead to a
> {...@link LockObtainFailedException}. The {...@link
> LockObtainFailedException}
> is also thrown if an IndexReader on the same directory is used to delete
> documents
> from the index.</p>{code}
> Anyone remember why NativeFSLockFactory is not the default over
> SimpleFSLockFactory?
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
