I see, so you're essentially saying, I can simply remove the volatile keyword
in this case, and it's exactly the same becuase I am only using it for read and
writes?
So the case I'd need to be more careful of is if an manipulation method is
called on the object itself - suppose:
public
On 2011-09-22, Danijel Kecman wrote:
> i would like to contribute.
welcome Danijel.
The best way to start contributing is by looking at the issues in JIRA
pick one and start providing patches there - as well as engaging in
discussion on this list.
Cheers
Stefan
Prescott,
You really don't need to do that; reads and writes of reference fields are
guaranteed to be atomic as per section 5.5 of the C# Language Specufication
(Atomicity of variable references)
If you were doing other operations beyond the read and write that you wanted to
be atomic, then th
The line before had volatile in it..
private volatile System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream;
> From: geobmx...@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:14:41 -0700
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
>
>
> Before I go re
Before I go replacing all the volatile fields I wanted to run this past the
list:
private System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream;
into
private object o = new object();
private System.IO.StreamWriter _infoStream;
private System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream
{
get
{
Michael,
Troy is indeed right in that I was referring to Neal's email and not yours.
That was a mistake on my part and anything that sprung from that mistake
was unintended and I apologize for that.
For the rest, see inline.
The last e-mail was out of l
Say what? There's no personalities involved here.
It's simple, anything that comes between me and the source is unnecessary and
just gets in the way of deploying and using Lucene.NET
- Neal
-Original Message-
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 2
