lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark Miller" <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: - possible bug in lock timeout
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:04:18 GMT
By the way...it looks like to me like you still get the behavior you
wanted. Getting the lock effectively never times out, correct?

On Nov 7, 2007 8:54 AM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree to an extent. You could argue for checks like this in a lot of
> places though. It seems to protect an odd use case here. Normally your
> timeout would not be anywhere near Long.MAX_VALUE. I would argue there
> should be a better way to set "never timeout" than by using a huge
> number. In either case, its a pretty easy error to spot even without
> an exception thrown. These types of checks are a slippery slope.
>
> Of course the Lucene developers just might agree with you.
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2007 8:48 AM, Nikolay Diakov <nikolay.diakov@fredhopper.com> wrote:
> > Thanks, I understand.
> >
> > Nevertheless, a proper check for > Integer.MAX_VALUE won't hurt and will
> > make the function tolerate the whole range of its parameter values.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >    Nikolay
> >
> >
> > Mark Miller wrote:
> > > There are a few places in Lucene (prob in a lot of other code as well)
> > > where you should not use Long.MAX_VALUE.
> > >
> > > Don't use it as the number of docs to return in a TopDocsCollector
> > > either. If the code that takes that long even just adds 1 to the
> > > variable...your screwed with a huge negative number.
> > >
> > > In your case here, a huge long is getting cast to an int, and the int
> > > just cannot hold a number that big.
> > >
> > > Prob could be handled better, but I would avoid using Long.MAX_VALUE anyway.
> > >
> > > - Mark
> > >
> > > On Nov 7, 2007 8:21 AM, Nikolay Diakov <nikolay.diakov@fredhopper.com>
wrote:
> > >> In Lucene 2.x, in method Lock#obtain(long lockWaitTimeout) I see the
> > >> following line:
> > >>
> > >> int maxSleepCount = (int)(lockWaitTimeout / LOCK_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > >>
> > >> Since I wanted to set the lock timeout to the largest possible, I called
> > >> the IndexWriter#setDefaultWriteLockTimeout(Long.MAX_VALUE). This
> > >> produces the effect in the quoted line that we get maxSleepCount a
> > >> negative number.
> > >>
> > >> Is this intended?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>    Nik
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
>

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


Mime
View raw message