[jira] Created: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Created: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
NoLockFactory should have a private constructor
-----------------------------------------------

                 Key: LUCENE-2103
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103
             Project: Lucene - Java
          Issue Type: Bug
            Reporter: Shai Erera
             Fix For: 3.1


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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Assigned: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Uwe Schindler reassigned LUCENE-2103:
-------------------------------------

    Assignee: Uwe Schindler

> NoLockFactory should have a private constructor
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-2103
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Shai Erera
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>
> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2103:
----------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-2103.patch

Attached is the patch with javadocs and deprecation.

Will commit in a day.

> 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
>             Fix For: 3.1
>
>         Attachments: 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2103:
----------------------------------

          Component/s: Store
             Priority: Trivial  (was: Major)
    Affects Version/s: 3.0

> 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
>
>
> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Updated: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-2103:
----------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-2103.patch

New patch with CHANGES.txt, thanks Shai!

> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784842#action_12784842 ]

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2103:
---------------------------------------

One addition: In my opinion, this class should be final. With the private ctor it gets automatically final (you cannot extend without ctor), but should we change this for now, too? This would be a (small) BW break.

> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

    [ 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784851#action_12784851 ]

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-2103:
---------------------------------------

I think I keep this open for a moment, maybe others also have a comment about that.

I would also like to make it final and private (also the package private inner class).

> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[jira] Resolved: (LUCENE-2103) NoLockFactory should have a private constructor

Walter (Jira)
In reply to this post by Walter (Jira)

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2103?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Uwe Schindler resolved LUCENE-2103.
-----------------------------------

       Resolution: Fixed
    Lucene Fields: [New, Patch Available]  (was: [New])

Committed revision: 887995. Thanks Shai!

> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]