Sequence of operations seems logical, I don't see straight why this does not work. Could you minimize this to a small stand-alone program that does not work as expected? This will allow to recreate the problem here and debug it. It is interesting that facet 3.5 is used with core 3.4 and queries 3.4. Any particular reason why not using the same version in all 3?
Doron On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Mihai Caraman <caraman.mi...@gmail.com>wrote: > All packages used: core3.4, queries3.4, facet3.5. > Once every 3 minutes I *refreshTax* and once per day I *reopenEveryting*. > > *InitWriters()* > writer = new ThreadedIndexWriter > taxWriter = new LuceneTaxonomyWriter > // because the reader can't start if doesn't have a valid taxIndex > directory > taxWriter.commit(); > > *InitReaders()* > reader = IndexReader.open(writer, false); > taxReader = new LuceneTaxonomyReader > > *RefreshTax()* > taxWriter.commit(); > writer.commit(); > reader = Singleton.reader.reopen(); > taxReader.refresh(); > > *reopenEverything*() > reader.close(); > taxReader.close(); > taxWriter.close(); > writer.close(); > initWriters(); > initReaders(); > > I don't think the infostream from the taxWriter would do me any good. > because the writer does he's job, he's not stopping from indexing, but the > taxReader doesn't have access to those new entries. >
