lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-818) IndexWriter should detect when it's used after being closed
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:47:57 GMT


Daniel John Debrunner commented on LUCENE-818:

>> Yes, but it's not just thread scheduling, it's also lack of memory
>> barriers. The 2nd thread may *never* see the close(), depending on
>> the exact architecture of machine and the JVM.

>Yikes. Is this the Java memory model issue? Ie, there is no hard
>guarantee on when a "write" from one thread will be visible to other
>threads, unless you use "volatile"? 

Doesn't crossing a synchronization barrier ensure that all threads will seem the same value
of a field?

> IndexWriter should detect when it's used after being closed
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-818
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 2.1
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>         Assigned To: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-818.patch, LUCENE-818.take2.patch
> Spinoff from this thread on java-user:
> If you call addDocument on IndexWriter after it's closed you'll hit a
> hard-to-explain NullPointerException (because the RAMDirectory was
> closed).  Before 2.1, apparently you won't hit any exception and the
> IndexWrite will keep running but will have released it's write lock (I
> think).
> I plan to fix IndexWriter methods to throw an IllegalStateException if
> it has been closed.

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