lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Date Tue, 30 May 2006 18:51:27 GMT
Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : Agreed. But, I have not heard one compelling argument for the JDK 5 for
> : core. (JVM certainly)
> Off the top of my head...
>   * Generics for cleaner more type safe APIs
>   * Varargs for cleaner APIs
>   * Concurrency Libraries, in particular the new j.u.concurrent.locks package
> ...someone also mentioned ThreadLocal improvements -- but I'm not sure
> if that's a JVM issue or a language change.

The key word was "compelling".  What compells one may not compell 
another.  Sure, these are improvements, but that does not compell us to 
use them.  We may *elect* to start using them, that the pain they make 
by leaving some folks behind who'd like to stay with the latest Lucene 
features is outweighed by the pleasure they bring to folks constructing 
new features for Lucene.  Again, that's neither an easy nor an obvious 

Technically this will be decided by a lazy consensus of committers, with 
other members of the community also eligble to cast non-binding votes. 
When I once served on a jury, the judge advised us not to disclose our 
leanings too early in the deliberation process, to first air impartial 
observations, since it is hard to reach consensus once a discussion has 
become polarized.  I think we're still a ways from being ready to call a 
vote on this one.  I also don't see a pressing need for a decision 
today.  But lets try to start building consensus around a plan.

The most concrete plan to date is Hoss's:

 > 1a) Lucene Core 2.0.* releases garuntee java1.4 compatibility
 > 1b) Lucene Contrib modules in 2.0.* releases are free to require any java
 >     version they choose.
 > 2a) Lucene Core 2.1.* release garuntee java1.5 compatibility.
 > 2b) Lucene Contrib modules in 2.1.* releases are free to require any java
 >     version they choose.

Since we don't know the timeframe of these releases, it's hard to be 
sure what this really means.  The rubber will really only hit the road 
when we schedule a 2.1 release.  In effect, this punts the issue to 2.1 
release planning, which is fine by me.


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

View raw message