lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DM Smith <>
Subject Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Date Tue, 30 May 2006 15:38:03 GMT
Robert Engels wrote:
> If you need to run on OS9 then run Lucene 1.9 (or it seems 2.0, just not
> 2.1).
> You have a working, stable release that runs under 1.4. There are MANY
> applications that don't run under OS9 now (they require OSX). Why should
> Lucene be any different? I am fairly certain you cannot even purchase OS9
> from Apple anymore.
Lucene should be different from other applications because it is 
different. Lucene is not an application, it is a service library. It is 
used by applications.

Java applications are different than other applications. The promise of 
"write once, run anywhere" begins to fizzle when "anywhere" is no longer 
a goal.

I am using a fair number of other apache libraries and none of them 
require Java 5. Do any of apache libraries require Java 5? Will Lucene 
be the first?

For my application ( we provide software 
that reads Lucene indexed Bibles. Our clientèle are pastors, 
missionaries, students, churches and lay people that have a history of 
running very old machines. We are also toying with porting to PDAs and 
cell phones.

> 1.9 is a fine Lucene release. I suggest stopping 1.4 JDK support at 1.9. 2.0
> is bound to have many bug fixes, etc. and having the developers work in 1.4
> when everyone else is in 1.5 seems crazy.
2.0 has been released as Java 1.4 compatible. One of the tenets espoused 
here is that only a major release will break existing code. It will 
otherwise maintain backward compatibility. Based on that Lucene 2.0 
should stay at Java 1.4. (I do believe that is what the other emails in 
the thread are agreeing on)

Personally I don't care if contrib maintains backward compatibility and 
I don't think that the "backward compatibility rule" was applied to 
contrib (at least in the years that I have been lurking here).

When it comes to 2.1, to me it all depends on when it is released. If it 
were to be released in the next year, I would not like it as I assume 
that 2.1 will provide significant performance gains just as 2.0 did and 
I would want to provide those advantages to my user base.

Also, the other discussion of gjc seems to suggest that the hopes of a 
Lucene 2.1 are pinned on gjc supporting Java 5 features. If gjc 
compatibility is a reasonable requisite, then I don't think that it is 
reasonable for Lucene to go ahead of it.

> I think the issues like ThreadLocal, etc. which are fixed in the 1.5
> libraries are reason enough to move. 

Are you saying that these were fixed in the API? If so, I think your 
argument is a good one. And I think you hit the nail on the head: Java 5 
should be considered when it solves a real problem. In this thread the 
primary arguments have been on how nice it would be to write in Java 5. 
While I agree it would be nicer, syntactic sugar not solve problems.

But if it is fixed in the JVM, then it can be documented that merely 
running Java 5 fixes the ThreadLocal issues. I wholeheartedly recommend 
running  Java 1.4 applications under a Java 5 jvm. And while I don't 
like it, I don't mind telling my user base that the problem they 
encountered has been reported and fixed and the solution for them is to 
put up with the problem or upgrade.

> You can't get Sun to fix these old JDK
> issues, why should we be attempting to work around them.

I think that Lucene should be very clear in what it sees as its mission 
and its supported community. From this mailing list, I get the 
impression that it is primarily one of server side applications. In this 
case there is some level of control over the execution environment. My 
use is client side application and I don't have much control over the 
execution environment. I think it may be constructive to poll the lucene 
users mailing list as to what they need.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DM Smith [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
> Please don't move to Java 5.
> My reasons are simple (and some perhaps stem out of old information or
> misinformation):
>     MacOS 9 does not run Java 1.5, which is one of my target platforms. 
> Has Java 5 been ported to all target platforms?
>     Java 5 has nice syntax sugar but no real substance other than the
> stronger type checking.
>         (My opinion based on porting to Java 5 and then back to Java 1.4.2.)
>     Not all support tooling (e.g. java2html, checkstyle, findbugs, ...)
> supports Java 5 syntax. This reduces my ability to qa code using these
> tools.
>     Java 5 moves lucene away from the possibility of ever working on J2ME.
>     Java 5 moves away from running on an open source java, e.g. gjc.
>     The performance benefits of a Java 5 JVM are independent of Java 5
> source.
>     Going to Java 5 requires all applications using Lucene to upgrade to
> Java 5.
> Sure Java 5 has been out for a while and Java 6 is around the corner, but
> ask yourself why it is not the defacto standard version of Java.
> karl wettin wrote:
>> Will code with 1.5 syntax be committed?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message