On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 16:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So far I am seeing 2 solutions and honestly I don't love either totally. I > am thinking that without changes to Lucene itself, the best "general" way to > implement this might be to have a queue of changes and have Lucene work off > this queue in a single thread using a time-settable batch method. This is > similar to what you are using below, but I don't like that you forcibly > unlock Lucene if it shows itself locked. Using the Queue approach, only > that one thread could be accessing Lucene for writes/deletes anyway so there > should be no "unknown" locking.
I forgot one aspect of my implementation that has implications for this scheme: additions to the index don't show up until you call IndexWriter.close(). There's no flush() method, so in your queue, you'd need to open and close the IndexWriter when it was time to write the changes to the index. Luke --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
