Are there any objections to adding "throws LockReleaseFailedException"
to Lock.release, and subclassing that exception from IOException?
I think this is a very minor break in backwards compatibility, because
all places that call Lock.release in Lucene already throw IOException
themselves.
The only other option I can see, as Nikolay suggests below, is to
subclass from RuntimeException, but I don't think that's very clean
and really the source of the issue (failed to delete the lock file)
is really most like an IOException.
Mike
"Nikolay Diakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
