I'm not clear whether this is a 'yes' or a 'no'.
I think other committers would need to weigh in on it. I'm fine with making a change to check isDirectory as well and not deleting them since Lucene (currently) does not work with sub-directories. But I'm only one vote.
For application reasons I
would like to use a directory structure for indexes that mirrors the
collection structure of the site, so that there is a master index for the
whole site and subindexes in subdirectories for each virtual site (and so on
recursively while I am building subsubindexes for later consolidation).
Certainly seems reasonable. But I could also argue that you are abusing Lucene a little since Lucene *owns* the directory, not you directly.
I can't see any reason why Lucene should adopt a policy of preventing me
from doing this & of forcing me into something more complicated. Especially
when in reality this policy is merely a bug & very easily fixable.
Careful now. Given the above argument, it is not a bug. Lucene views the directory as an index. I doubt very seriously if there is anything documented within Lucene that says that directory can be used for other purposes.
I'm on the fence here. I don't view it as a "bug" in that it is behavior against the design. It is working as designed, is my guess. But I also agree with you that it would be nice if Lucene was kind enough to allow you to work within that directory in areas it is not (currently) concerned with. But, what about the future.... should Lucene reserve the right to own that directory to make subdirectories for a future use?
It is not a black and white area here, I don't think.
Feel free to formally file a bug report though - that is the official way to make an issue known to the committers.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
