Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 20756 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 18:27:09 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 18:27:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 73743 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2004 18:26:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 73712 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2004 18:26:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 73666 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 18:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.121.247) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 18:26:53 -0000 Received: from user-1121m0e.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.216.14] helo=ENGELSSERVER) by firecrest.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B0PSr-0006I0-00 for lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:26:57 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Robert Engels" To: "Lucene Developers List" Subject: RE: New FieldSortedHitQueue uses Java 1.4 feature Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:26:57 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <404CB3F5.1080601@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-ELNK-Trace: 33cbdd8ed9881ca8776432462e451d7b2728ff8d3d716ca33d96c3dfa9ab6d02d8fd787e69dbec3a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Seems like a bad precedent... if developers have to worry about coding around problems in specific JDK's, it could be a nightmare. What about the next user who uses some JDK than is less mainstream? If there is a workaround for the IBM JDK, those that use the IBM JDK should need to install the workaround, or not use the latest version of Lucene. This is whole point of Sun's 'reference implementation' - so that developers DON'T have to do these sort of things. -----Original Message----- From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@apache.org] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:57 AM To: Lucene Developers List Subject: Re: New FieldSortedHitQueue uses Java 1.4 feature Tim Jones wrote: > But, if this is the only code depending on java 1.4, it seems like it would > be better to remove it for better version compatibility. Perhaps what would > be best would be to have the code detect which version it's running under > and act appropriately. I vote for just removing it, and keeping Lucene 1.4 compatible with Java 1.2. I don't think it's worth trying to detect the version. You might add a comment, or even a commented-out 1.4-based implementation, to mark this as something to revisit when we eventually move Lucene to Java 1.4. Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org