[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6507?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14563147#comment-14563147
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-6507:
---------------------------------------
Hi Robert, thanks for fixing and opening the new issues. Sorry for the
confusing discussion today. This was actually 2 bugs: an API naming
inconsistency and the mutable Locks in combination with the broken clone()
behaviour on the Lock instance.
I will look into your fixes and test them, but until the locks get immutable (I
will work on this, for sure, I just have to prepare my talk for next week).
> NativeFSLock.close() can invalidate other locks
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6507
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6507
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Simon Willnauer
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 4.10.5, 5.2
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6507.patch, LUCENE-6507.patch, LUCENE-6507.patch,
> LUCENE-6507.patch, LUCENE-6507.patch, LUCENE-6507.patch, LUCENE-6507.patch
>
>
> the lock API in Lucene is super trappy since the lock that we return form
> this API must first be obtained and if we can't obtain it the lock should not
> be closed since we might ie. close the underlying channel in the NativeLock
> case which releases all lock for this file on some operating systems. I think
> the makeLock method should try to obtain and only return a lock if we
> successfully obtained it. Not sure if it's possible everywhere but we should
> at least make the documentation clear here.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
