Re: LUCENE-1282 worked around in Lucene 2.4?

2.4.0 does have the workaround for that JRE bug. Mike Michael Bell wrote: this is the issue with Java 6's server VM. Yes I know it's fixed in Sun's beta update to Java 1.6, but did the workaround get committed to 2.4? It is not documented in the CHANGELOG. Thanks

LUCENE-1282 worked around in Lucene 2.4?

this is the issue with Java 6's server VM. Yes I know it's fixed in Sun's beta update to Java 1.6, but did the workaround get committed to 2.4? It is not documented in the CHANGELOG. Thanks - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: LUCENE-1282

surprisingly) as low priority. While we've worked around it in Lucene, as best I can tell, you really can't be sure so downgrading is the safest course of action. Mike dan at gmail wrote: Hello, I don't have a good understanding of what options for avoid this corrupted index pr

Re: LUCENE-1282

est I can tell, you really > can't be sure so downgrading is the safest course of action. > > Mike > > dan at gmail wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> I don't have a good understanding of what options for avoid this >> corrupted >> in

Re: LUCENE-1282

I can tell, you really > can't be sure so downgrading is the safest course of action. > > Mike > > dan at gmail wrote: > >> >> Hello, >> >> I don't have a good understanding of what options for avoid this >> corrupted >> in

Re: LUCENE-1282

wrote: Hello, I don't have a good understanding of what options for avoid this corrupted index problem described in LUCENE-1282. It seems to me that I either downgrade JRE from 1.6.0_06 to 1.6.0_03, or wait for an official release of Lucene 2.4.0 which includes a work

LUCENE-1282

Hello, I don't have a good understanding of what options for avoid this corrupted index problem described in LUCENE-1282. It seems to me that I either downgrade JRE from 1.6.0_06 to 1.6.0_03, or wait for an official release of Lucene 2.4.0 which includes a workaround for this JRE bug.