Eh, that exactly :) When I read my emails in reverse order....
--- Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about a shutdown hook?
>
> Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
> public void run() { /* whatever */ }
> });
>
> see also
> http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2003/03/26/shutdownhook.html
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:21:42 -0800, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> > > As one for whom the question's come up recently, I'd say that
> locks need
> > > to be terminated gracefully, instead. I've noticed a number of
> cases where
> > > the locks get abandoned in exceptional conditions, which is
> almost exactly
> > > what you don't want.
> >
> > The problem is that this is hard to do from Java. A typical
> approach is
> > to put the process id in the lock file, then, if that process is
> dead,
> > ignore the lock file. But Java does not let one know process ids.
> Java
> > 1.4 provides a LockFile mechanism which should mostly solve this,
> but
> > Lucene 1.4.3 does not yet require Java 1.4 and hence cannot use
> that
> > feature. Lucene 2.0 is likely to require Java 1.4 and should be
> able to
> > do a better job of automatically unlocking indexes when processes
> die.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
