So you believe someone actually does "new NoLockFactory()"? If so, we should add the ctor as deprecated, because currently it does not exist, and thus cannot be deprecated :).
Of course, adding a deprecated empty ctor needs to be accompanied by proper documentation to move it to private, or else it will be deleted, and we'll have this thread again after 4.0 :). Shai On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > I have seen this several times when working on oal.store. We should have > deprecated the ctor in 2.9 and removed in 3.0. For BW compatibility we have > to simply deprecate it and tell the user to take the singleton. > > > > Uwe > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Shai Erera [mailto:ser...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2009 1:11 PM > *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > *Subject:* NoLockFactory does not have a private ctor > > > > NoLockFactory documents in its javadocs that one should call the static > getNoLockFactory() in order to create an instance. The class however does > not have a private ctor, so someone can create another instance of it. This > is not a big deal though, because makeLock returns a static member. But it > looks like this class should follow the singleton pattern, however doesn't. > > Looks an easy fix to me. Can someone commit it, or do we need an issue? > > Shai >
