[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784845#action_12784845
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-2103:
------------------------------------
if we're breaking BW, why not add the private ctor? I'm sure that when 3.1 will
be out, that won't be the only BW :). Anyway, this is not a serious BW. If
somebody relies on the ctor, then that somebody may also rely on the class not
being final.
> NoLockFactory should have a private constructor
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2103
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 3.0
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Uwe Schindler
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-2103.patch, LUCENE-2103.patch
>
>
> NoLockFactory documents in its javadocs that one should use the static
> getNoLockFactory() method. However the class does not declare a private empty
> constructor, which breaks its Singleton purpose. We cannot add the empty
> private constructor because that'd break break-compat (even though I think
> it's very low chance someone actually instantiates the class), therefore
> we'll add a @deprecated warning to the class about this, and add the method
> in 4.0. I personally prefer to add an empty constructor w/ the @deprecated
> method, but am fine either way.
> Don't know if a patch is needed, as this is a trivial change.
--
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: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
