Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Lock obtain timed out
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:37:12 +0100
Message-ID: <08E5708CB5CDCF468B4B848BFA0A540205BC86@QEO00201.de.t-online.corp>
Thread-Topic: Lock obtain timed out
Thread-Index: AcPDwJGH9a0d/uxlSAC21fka+CzuDg==
From: "Hohwiller, Joerg" <j.hohwiller@t-online.net>
To: <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>

Hi there,

I have not yet got any response about my problem.

While debugging into the depth of lucene (really hard to read deep =
insde) I=20
discovered that it is possible to disable the Locks using a System =
property.

When I start my application with -DdisableLuceneLocks=3Dtrue,=20
I do not get the error anymore.

I just wonder if this is legal and wont cause other trouble???
As far as I could understand the source, a proper thread=20
synchronization is done using locks on Java Objects and
the index-store locks seem to be required only if multiple=20
lucenes (in different VMs) work on the same index.
In my situation there is only one Java-VM running and only one
lucene is working on one index.=20

Am I safe disabling the locking???
Can anybody tell me where to get documentation about the Locking
strategy (I still would like to know why I have that problem) ???

Or does anybody know where to get an official example of how to
handle concurrent index modification and searches?

Tank you so much
  J=F6rg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org