[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-305?page=comments#action_12431766 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-305:
---
I think we can close this issue now that LUCENE-635 is resolved.
> [PATCH] Lock Framework - allows custom lo
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-305?page=comments#action_12431766 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-305:
---
I think we can close this issue now that LUCENE-635 is resolved.
> [PATCH] Lock Framework - allows custom lo
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-305?page=comments#action_12427015 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-305:
---
See LUCENE-635 which subsumes this patch.
> [PATCH] Lock Framework - allows custom lock mechanism
>
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-305?page=comments#action_12427015 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-305:
---
See LUCENE-635 which subsumes this patch.
> [PATCH] Lock Framework - allows custom lock mechanism
>
I don't really know/understand a lot about the current internals of Lucene
Locking ... but based on the writeup you've added to Jira, your plan of
attack seems like a sound refactoring approach.
Your choice to use explicit setters instead of a system properties seems
to make sense given some of
: I'd like to sanity check the approach to get any feedback:
I don't really know/understand a lot about the current internals of Lucene
Locking ... but based on the writeup you've added to Jira, your plan of
attack seems like a sound refactoring approach.
Your choice to use explicit setters inst
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-305?page=comments#action_12418493 ]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-305:
---
I'm working towards a patch for this. I changed the name of the issue
to better reflect the goal.
I started with the a
