lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
Date Fri, 23 Sep 2011 03:20:36 GMT

The line before had volatile in it..

 

private volatile System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream;

----------------------------------------
> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:14:41 -0700
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
>
>
> Before I go replacing all the volatile fields I wanted to run this past the list:
>
>
>
> private System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream;
>
>
> into
>
>
>
> private object o = new object();
> private System.IO.StreamWriter _infoStream;
> private System.IO.StreamWriter infoStream
> {
> get
> {
> lock (o)
> {
> return _infoStream;
> }
> }
> set
> {
> lock (o)
> {
> _infoStream = value;
> }
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, I don't normally deal with locks..
>
>
>
> Thanks for any guidance
>
>
>
> ~P
>
> >
> > @Prescott,
> > Can the volatile fields be wrapped in a lock statement and code that access
> > those fields with replaced with call to a property /method that wraps access
> > to that field?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought it was:
> > >
> > > 2.9.2 and before are 2.0 compatible
> > > 2.9.4 and before are 3.5 compatible
> > > After 2.9.4 are 4.0 compatible
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Troy
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Michael Herndon
> > > <mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> > > > if thats the case, then well need conditional statements for including
> > > > ThreadLocal<T>
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I thought this was after 2.9.4
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Michael Herndon
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 8:30 AM
> > > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 2.9.4
> > > >>
> > > >> @Robert,
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe the overwhelming consensus on the mailing list vote was
to
> > > move
> > > >> to
> > > >> .NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'll take care of build scripts issue while they being refactored
into
> > > >> smaller chunks this week.
> > > >>
> > > >> @Troy, Agreed.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Robert Jordan <robertj@gmx.net>
wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4? Feedback has been
positive
> > > and
> > > >> >> its been quiet. Do we feel ready to vote for a new release?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I don't know if the build infrastructure is part of the
> > > >> > release. If yes, then there is an open issue:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Contrib doesn't build right now because there
> > > >> > are some assembly name mismatches between certain *.csproj
> > > >> > files and build/scripts/contrib.targets.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The following patches should fix the issue:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://github.com/robert-j/**lucene.net/commit/**
> > > >> > c5218bca56c19b3407648224781eec**7316994a39<
> > > >>
> > > https://github.com/robert-j/lucene.net/commit/c5218bca56c19b3407648224781eec7316994a39
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://github.com/robert-j/**lucene.net/commit/**
> > > >> > 50bad187655d59968d51d472b57c2a**40e201d663<
> > > >>
> > > https://github.com/robert-j/lucene.net/commit/50bad187655d59968d51d472b57c2a40e201d663
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making
> > > >> > Lucene.Net.dll a .NET 4.0-only assembly:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/**lucene.net/commit/**
> > > >> > 23ea6f52362fc7dbce48fd012cea12**9a7350c73c<
> > > >>
> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/commit/23ea6f52362fc7dbce48fd012cea129a7350c73c
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Did we agree about abandoning .NET <= 3.5?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Robert
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message