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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
