lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Willnauer (Commented) (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-3558) SearcherManager and NRTManager should be in the same package
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:07:51 GMT


Simon Willnauer commented on LUCENE-3558:

bq. Can we also move SearcherLifetimeManager
I wasn't sure about this one - SeracherManager and NRTManager went through serious refactorings
since they where added. But we can still do that if it is in core... I will mover the NRTCachingDirectory
in a different issue.

bq. I'm curious why you used svn copy instead of svn move?

I used svn cp since the patch removes the files and otherwise some systems have problems if
the files don't exist anymore. I used svn mv to create the patch actually :)
> SearcherManager and NRTManager should be in the same package
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-3558
>                 URL:
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>            Assignee: Simon Willnauer
>             Fix For: 3.5, 4.0
>         Attachments: LUCENE-3558.patch,
> I didnt even know NRTManager was still around, because its in the .index package, whereas
SearcherManager is in the .search package.
> Separately, I don't like that this stuff is so 'hard' with core lucene... would it be
so bad if this stuff was added to core?
> I suspect a lot of people have issues with this stuff (see
for example.
> Worst case is just that, combine mistakes with trying to manage this stuff with MMap
unmapping and total lack of error detection
> for searching closed readers (LUCENE-3439) and its a mess.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


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

View raw message