Michael McCandless wrote:
We could indeed simply tie "close" to mean "commit now", and not add a
separate "commit" method.
But what about the "bulk delete then bulk add" case? Ideally if a
reader refreshes by checking "isCurrent()" it shouldn't ever open the
index "at a bad time". Ie, we need a way to open a reader, delete a
bunch of docs, close it *without* committing, open a writer, add a
bunch of docs, and then do the commit, all so that any readers that
are refreshing would know not to open the segments_N that was
committed with all the deletes but none of the adds. This is one use
case that explicit commits would address.
One could also implement this with a Directory that permits
checkpointing and rollback. Would that be any simpler?
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
