I sure hope not :) I hope 3.0 is out soonish... But just in case, I've reopened & marked fix version 2.9.2, so if we ever do a 2.9.2 that'll remind me to backport.
Mike On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Simon Willnauer <simon.willna...@googlemail.com> wrote: > dude, will we have 2.9.2? :) > > simon > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Michael McCandless > <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: >> We should fix this; I'll open an issue & dig. >> >> Somehow SegmentInfo.files() is being buggy, claiming _0.prx is a file >> belonging to the segment, when it clearly isn't. >> >> BTW we can't hold 2.9.1, since it's now "out" (as of yesterday) :) >> >> Mike >> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> I wanted to check something and wrote this very simple program, which >>> surprisingly failed because of a FileNotFound exception: >>> >>> Directory dir = new RAMDirectory(); >>> IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(dir, new SimpleAnalyzer(), >>> MaxFieldLength.UNLIMITED); >>> writer.setInfoStream(System.out); >>> writer.addDocument(new Document()); >>> writer.commit(); >>> writer.close(); >>> >>> It fails with the exception: >>> >>> Exception in thread "main" java.io.FileNotFoundException: _0.prx >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.store.RAMDirectory.fileLength(RAMDirectory.java:149) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.segmentSize(DocumentsWriter.java:1150) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.DocumentsWriter.flush(DocumentsWriter.java:587) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlushInternal(IndexWriter.java:3572) >>> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.doFlush(IndexWriter.java:3483) >>> at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.flush(IndexWriter.java:3474) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1940) >>> at >>> org.apache.lucene.index.IndexWriter.addDocument(IndexWriter.java:1894) >>> >>> This happens on the latest code from trunk (and validated also against 2.4). >>> Seems like it's there forever. This only happens when I set infoStream, >>> because as part of the logging we compute the segment size. _0.prx is not >>> found because I didn't add any terms to the index. If I don't set the >>> infoStream, or add terms to the index, this exception is not thrown. >>> >>> Like I wrote in the subject, I don't think it's that important (for example >>> to hold off 2.9.1), but still a bug. Not a very important bug even, but I >>> can't get it out of my head that it's still a bug :) >>> >>> Can be fixed by making sure segmentSize() does not thrown any FNF exception >>> for missing .prx? Does not sound too safe to me. Maybe we just remember this >>> and tell people (like me) "even in silly tests, add a term to the document"? >>> >>> Shai. >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
