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]
