[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4450?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15585050#comment-15585050
 ] 

Alex Parvulescu commented on OAK-4450:
--------------------------------------

hmm, I'm seeing this on a slow test and I'm not sure if it's introduced by the 
current changes:
{noformat}
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Revisions not bound to a store
        at 
com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkState(Preconditions.java:150) 
~[guava-15.0.jar:na]
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.TarRevisions.checkBound(TarRevisions.java:183)
 ~[classes/:na]
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.TarRevisions.flush(TarRevisions.java:198)
 ~[classes/:na]
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.FileStore.flush(FileStore.java:382) 
~[classes/:na]
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.FileStore$3.run(FileStore.java:227) 
~[classes/:na]
        at 
org.apache.jackrabbit.oak.segment.file.SafeRunnable.run(SafeRunnable.java:67) 
~[classes/:na]
{noformat}
seems the flush call comes pretty early, maybe before the filestore had a 
chance to initialize


> Properly split the FileStore into read-only and r/w variants 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-4450
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4450
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: Technical task
>          Components: segment-tar
>            Reporter: Michael Dürig
>            Assignee: Alex Parvulescu
>              Labels: technical_debt
>             Fix For: Segment Tar 0.0.16
>
>         Attachments: OAK-4450-oak-run.patch
>
>
> The {{ReadOnlyFileStore}} class currently simply overrides the {{FileStore}} 
> class replacing all mutator methods with a trivial implementation. This 
> approach however leaks into its ancestor as the read only store needs to pass 
> a flag to the constructor of its super class so some fields can be 
> instantiated properly for the read only case. 
> We should clean this up to properly separate the read only and the r/w store. 
> Most likely we should factor the commonalities into a common, abstract base 
> class.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to