lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yonik Seeley (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-635) [PATCH] Decouple locking implementation from Directory implementation
Date Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:23:16 GMT
    [ ] 
Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-635:

Yeah... those were the slight differences in external behavior I saw.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean we should examine if it's OK to change it (or
just defer the changes to a later patch...).

> [PATCH] Decouple locking implementation from Directory implementation
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-635
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-635-Aug3.patch, patch-Jul26.tar
> This is a spinoff of
> I've opened this new issue to capture that it's wider scope than
> LUCENE-305.
> This is a patch originally created by Jeff Patterson (see above link)
> and then modified as described here:
> with some small additional changes:
>   * For each FSDirectory.getDirectory(), I made a corresponding
>     version that also accepts a LockFactory instance.  So, you can
>     construct an FSDirectory with your own LockFactory.
>   * Cascaded defaulting for FSDirectory's LockFactory implementation:
>     if you pass in a LockFactory instance, it's used; else if
>     setDisableLocks was called, we use NoLockFactory; else, if the
>     system property ""
>     is defined, we use that; finally, we'll use the original locking
>     implementation (SimpleFSLockFactory).
> The gist is that all locking code has been moved out of *Directory and
> into subclasses of a new abstract LockFactory class.  You can now set
> the LockFactory of a Directory to change how it does locking.  For
> example, you can create an FSDirectory but set its locking to
> SingleInstanceLockFactory (if you know all writing/reading will take
> place a single JVM).
> The changes pass all unit tests (on Ubuntu Linux Sun Java 1.5 and
> Windows XP Sun Java 1.4), and I added another TestCase to test the
> LockFactory code.
> Note that LockFactory defaults are not changed: FSDirectory defaults
> to SimpleFSLockFactory and RAMDirectory defaults to
> SingleInstanceLockFactory.
> Next step (separate issue) is to create a LockFactory that uses the OS
> native locks (through java.nio).

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message