I see you do the wrapping in a RuntimeException trick. Perhaps you can
introduce a special exception derived from RuntimeException that you
would throw in that case. It would basically mean "The underlying FS
does something we cannot tolerate so we fail fast."
--Nikolay
Michael McCandless wrote:
I agree, we should not ignore the return value here. I think throwing an
exception if it returns false is the right thing to do? Though, if it's
a checked exception, that's not a backwards compatible change...
Mike
"Nikolay Diakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have briefly reviewed the SimpleFSLock of Lucene 2.1 and 2.2. I see
that the lock release mechanism does not check the return value of
delete:
public void release() {
lockFile.delete();
}
On most linux-es this can never return false, however under some windows
FS if someone (a virus scanner) touches the file at the proper
(improper) time, one may get a delete failure and get a false value. In
the original code this means that the directory stays locked forever
(unless someone does double unlocking or until a clearLock from the lock
factory). For diagnosting purposes, it may be a good idea to throw an
exception in that case. Alternatively, release() may return a boolean up
the chain, however this may require more changes in the code using the
release(). Just a suggestion.
Cheers,
Nikolay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
