[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1707?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12724090#action_12724090
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1707:
--------------------------------------------
bq. However, I thought we agreed that nearly all applications do not rely on ACE
It's not that apps are relying on ACE, it's that the unlucky user who has
problems is informed much more clearly that the problem is in their code and
not a bug in Lucene. It's a trap.
In the past there were a good number of users posting with confusing exceptions
coming out Lucene, thinking they had hit a bug. These users spent time, others
spent time reading it, answering it, etc. Now, I haven't seen one of those
emails in quite a while.
bq. But then this issue becomes just changing refCount to not volatile?
I think we should leave refCount volatile, but just assign false to a new
write-once "isOpen" (that's not volatile) when refCount drops to false.
> Don't use ensureOpen() excessively in IndexReader and IndexWriter
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1707
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1707
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1707.patch
>
>
> A spin off from here:
> http://www.nabble.com/Excessive-use-of-ensureOpen()-td24127806.html.
> We should stop calling this method when it's not necessary for any internal
> Lucene code. Currently, this code seems to hurt properly written apps,
> unnecessarily.
> Will post a patch soon
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
