From java-dev-return-21677-apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive=lucene.apache.org@lucene.apache.org Mon Oct 08 18:01:01 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45092 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2007 18:01:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2007 18:01:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 43338 invoked by uid 500); 8 Oct 2007 17:58:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 43292 invoked by uid 500); 8 Oct 2007 17:58:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 43281 invoked by uid 99); 8 Oct 2007 17:58:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:58:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:58:11 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3053D71422B for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <27255346.1191866271195.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael Busch (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-743) IndexReader.reopen() In-Reply-To: <2046210.1165877241108.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-743?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12533172 ] Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-743: -------------------------------------- Thanks all for the reviews and comments! There seem to be some issues/open questions concerning the cloning. Before I comment on them I think it would make sense to decide whether we want to stick with the cloning approach or not. Mike suggests this approach: > Actually if we went back to the sharing (not cloning) approach, could > we insert a check for any writing operation against the re-opened > reader that throws an exception if the original reader is not yet > closed? Interesting, yes that should work in case we have two readers (the original one and the re-opened one). But what happens if the user calls reopen twice to get two re-opened instances back? Then there would be three instances, and without cloning the two re-opened ones would also share the same resources. Is this a desirable use case or would it be okay to restrict reopen() so that it can only create one new instance? > IndexReader.reopen() > -------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-743 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-743 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Index > Reporter: Otis Gospodnetic > Assignee: Michael Busch > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 2.3 > > Attachments: IndexReaderUtils.java, lucene-743-take2.patch, lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch, lucene-743.patch, MyMultiReader.java, MySegmentReader.java, varient-no-isCloneSupported.BROKEN.patch > > > This is Robert Engels' implementation of IndexReader.reopen() functionality, as a set of 3 new classes (this was easier for him to implement, but should probably be folded into the core, if this looks good). -- 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: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org