This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
Build: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 110119-6fd80576f2f1) VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, 17.1-b03-307, Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment, 1.6.0_22-b04-307-10M3261 OS: Mac OS X User Comments: musilt2: reindexed local repo in wanted to browse node structure Stacktrace: java.nio.channels.ClosedChannelException at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.ensureOpen(FileChannelImpl.java:88) at sun.nio.ch.FileChannelImpl.read(FileChannelImpl.java:613) at org.apache.lucene.store.NIOFSDirectory$NIOFSIndexInput.readInternal(NIOFSDirectory.java:168) at org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.refill(BufferedIndexInput.java:160) at org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.readByte(BufferedIndexInput.java:39) at org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInput.readVInt(IndexInput.java:79)
Created attachment 105252 [details] stacktrace
Not clear there is anything to be done about it; I am presuming it is unreproducible. Might or might not be solved by a Lucene upgrade.
In fact, this one comes from preintegration testing of new version of lucerne and mvn indexer. Tomas Z. was interested to take a look at this stracktrace. Anyway RANDOM kw is correct.
Does not seem to be Lucene 3.x specific. The Directory implementations are "same" in 2.9 and 3.0. Maybe related to Thread.interrupt() Doesn't maven do it? If so, index should use SimpleFSDirectory as described (by red color) in Javadoc here: http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_0_3/api/core/org/apache/lucene/store/NIOFSDirectory.html The SimpleFSDirectory is slower if multiple threads are querying the same index, but this is not the case of NB.
(In reply to comment #4) > Maybe related to Thread.interrupt() Doesn't maven do it? I don't think so, but not sure. > index should use SimpleFSDirectory OK - do you want to make the change, or assign to me?
I can do it. But I would first try to reproduce it with Tomas Musil.
I was not able to reproduce in #20100127 even after a lot of attempts:( (In reply to comment #6) > I can do it. > But I would first try to reproduce it with Tomas Musil.
OK. Probably random and unusual. The Maven indexer should probably react to IOException's like this more gracefully, perhaps by discarding the potentially corrupt index and starting over.
Only one report, probably not worth investigating.