lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hoss Man (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-793) Javadocs should explain possible causes for IOExceptions
Date Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:56:06 GMT


Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-793:

Hmmm... well my paranoia says that if we are trying to make the Exceptions more explicit,
then any place we currently "throw Foo" we should "throw Bar" where "Foo.class.isAssignable(Bar.class)"
... but if we currently mix/match IOException/IllegalStateException in cases of corruption
then I guess it makes sense to use  CorruptIndexException extends IOException.

(the only alternative i can think of would be a CorruptIndexIOException and a CorruptIndexStateException
.. but you're probably right .. i don't very many people are worried about catching the IllegalStateException
and doing anyhitng special that they aren't already doing when they catch the IOException.

> Javadocs should explain possible causes for IOExceptions
> --------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-793
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Javadocs
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>         Assigned To: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-793.patch
> Most methods in Lucene reserve the right to throw an IOException.  This can occur for
nearly all methods from low level problems like wrong permissions, transient IO errors, bad
hard drive or corrupted file system, corrupted index, etc, but for some methods there are
also more interesting causes that we should try to document.
> Spinoff of this thread:

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

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

View raw message