The compound file storage implementation that became the default with Lucene 1.4 seems to not work so well with the Berkeley DB-based implementation of org.apache.lucene.store.Directory I submitted to the sandbox about 9 months ago. Even though this implementation, org.apache.lucene.store.db.DbDirectory, and its related classes are still exact as far as the interface defined by Directory and its related classes are concerned, there seems to be some apparently random failures that I'm thinking are related to implied flush semantics.
I haven't looked into this any further yet as I'm wondering what sense using this compound file storage feature makes when using Berkeley DB storage since,
in a way, Berkeley DB files are compound files themselves.
The obvious workaround is to call IndexWriter.setUseCompoundFiles(False) but this workaround needs to be documented to be effective.
So, my question: why is the compound file storage implemented in such an orthogonal to Directory way instead of just being another Directory implementation called FSCompoundFileDirectory ?
Andi..
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
