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 17:38:50 GMT
Robert Engels wrote:
> I think the code "cleanliness" of 1.5
Perhaps, but only if it is retro-actively applied to the entire code 
base. It creates confusion when there is a blend of coding styles. Some 
enhanced for loops, some old fashioned iterators; some new collections, 
some old.

Some of the features make code harder to read, e.g. some generic 
implementations can be downright obtuse.

>  and the better concurrent classes are
> a huge benefit.

Yes. And Lucene could have been using them for years:
It was Doug Lea's work that was recast and incorporated into Java 5. And 
according to a note on that site, the differences are fairly trivial and 
easy to figure out.
I have used it since Java 1.3. Lucene could too.

I don't find this to be a compelling reason to abandon 1.4 for core Lucene.

> I know in our project we developed many similar classes, and these can no be
> replaced by core JDK classes. I also find 1.5 code far easier to read and
> work with.
> I just don't understand why a "few' voices can hold back progress. These
> "few" can just run older versions of Lucene.

Do you really have a handle on your user community? The developers here 
all seem to be chomping at the bit to upgrade to Java 5 (cautiously, I 
hope). But they are power users. How about the regular schmoes that use 

And I don't think that a few days of discussion on a developers list 
(with me weighing in today) constitutes holding back progress.

Progress should be measured attainment of goals. Going to Java 5 should 
provide measurable attainment of one or more goals. And if only a few, 
it should be weighed to determine whether it is really worth it.

>  1.5 has been released for
> almost 4 years on most major platforms. Not using 1.5 for such a high
> profile project is absurd.
I'm not sure what constitutes a major platform? Is it Windows, Linux and 
AFAIK, there has not been an open source implementation of Java 5 yet.

Anyway, I've said my piece and unless there  is something new to say, 
I'll be quiet ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
> On May 30, 2006, at 11:45 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>> By stating that I needed to run on Mac OS 9, this also implies that I 
>> need to run on OSX prior to Tiger (10.4) which does not have Java
>> 5 and according to everything that I read, won't. OSX 10.3 does not 
>> seem like an unreasonable target platform for Lucene applications.
> for all such arguments, my take is (as a fervent Mac-head myself) that we
> allow folks to innovate using whatever technical details they want and let
> lucene evolve as the state of the art of languages changes.  there are
> always older versions of lucene that work quite well enough on other
> versions of java, etc.  those that need to maintain back compatibility
> should step forward to work on that as things evolve.
> certainly we are not suggesting that we go crazy using features of a newer
> JDK "just because"... but if there is a performance advantage then we have
> an obligation to pursue it.  for new development like the GData server,
> Solr, etc, we should be loose and allow the creative individuals to do their
> own thing.  for lucene core, we need compelling reasons to jump to a higher
> JDK requirement.
> we will not hold up progress because of the few that don't upgrade their
> macs when steve jobs waves his magic wand.
> 	Erik - from a snazzy speedy MacBook Pro running OS X 10.4.6 and not
> looking back.

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

View raw message