Yes..should have mentioned 'depending on finalizer'. Thx Chandra
-----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] [mailto:casper...@caspershouse.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:03 AM To: <lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Re: Implementing IDisposable / finalizer pattern to avoid index lock issues You meant "depending on the finalizer", not "depending on IDisposable"; IDisposable is called by the client and deterministic, finalizers are called by the runtime and not. - Nick On Jun 1, 2012, at 1:55 PM, "Lingam, ChandraMohan J" <chandramohan.j.lin...@intel.com> wrote: > Depending on idispose to close index writer is a slippery slope as it is > unpredictable when garabage collector will kick in. > > In the worst case, you may not be able to add/remove documents to the index > if some uncollected object is holding the lock on the index. Cleaner > approach is to simply close once the maintenance is completed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kohlhepp, Justin W (Heritage Holdings (HHI)) > [mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:48 AM > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Implementing IDisposable / finalizer pattern to avoid index lock > issues > > Hmm...well my implementation is too layered to allow for a try/catch to > correctly ensure that IndexWriter.Close is called, so I'm pretty much forced > to use IDisposable / finalizer. I'm just surprised that IndexWriter itself > doesn't do this work. Generally the expectation is that if a managed class > manages an unmanaged resource such as a file on disk, that it cleans up after > itself in a finalizer. > > Thanks for the response. It sounds like I'm not missing anything and this is > just the way things are. > > ~ Justin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Sayatovic [mailto:bsayato...@creditinfonet.com] > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 1:44 PM > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Implementing IDisposable / finalizer pattern to avoid index lock > issues > > I use a try/finally myself, with some extension methods to wrap it. My > understanding is that IDisposable is wrought with trouble. My Lucene access > is wrapped in an agent class, and my syntax ends up looking like > DoWithAgent(agent => agent.UpdateIndex(foo)); > > Brian Sayatovic > Senior Software Architect > > 866-218-1003 toll-free ext. 8936 > 937-235-8936 office > 4540 Honeywell Ct. Dayton, OH 45424 > > > This message may contain confidential/proprietary information from the > CINgroup or its subsidiaries. > If you are not an intended recipient, please refrain from the disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of this information. All such unauthorized > actions are strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in > error, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete all copies of this > material from any computer. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kohlhepp, Justin W (Heritage Holdings (HHI)) > [mailto:justin.kohlh...@thehartford.com] > > I was surprised to notice that IndexWriter does not implement IDisposable. > It seems that the user is responsible for guaranteeing that IndexWriter.Close > is called and that IndexWriter itself does not do this in a Dispose or > destructor method. Do I have this understanding correct? I wrote a wrapper > around Lucene.NET for my application and was forced to implement IDisposable > / finalizer in order for index to unlock correctly. Is this the expected > pattern? > ************************************************************ > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of > addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged > information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, > disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are > not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return > e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. > ************************************************************ > >
