Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8322 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2007 11:07:13 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Oct 2007 11:07:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 54663 invoked by uid 500); 20 Oct 2007 11:06:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 54612 invoked by uid 500); 20 Oct 2007 11:06:59 -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 54601 invoked by uid 99); 20 Oct 2007 11:06:59 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:06:59 -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; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:07:11 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E016771422E for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20504070.1192878410915.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael McCandless (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_12536419 ] Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-743: ------------------------------------------- {quote} I think we are forced to keep this semantics, for backwards compatibility. But I don't really think MultiReader/ParallelReader should actually be this aggressive. Maybe in the future we can add ctors for MultiReader/ParallelReader that accept a "doClose" boolean to turn this off. {quote} Actually I retract this: it's no longer necessary as long as we change ensureOpen to assert that RC > 0 instead of closed==false. I think this is actually a nice unexpected side-effect of using reference counting: it resolves this overly aggressive behavior of MultiReader/ParallelReader. > 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