Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 78005 invoked from network); 30 May 2006 16:27:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2006 16:27:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11027 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2006 16:27:51 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 10995 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2006 16:27:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 10984 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2006 16:27:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 May 2006 09:27:51 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [206.190.53.34] (HELO smtp109.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.53.34) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 30 May 2006 09:27:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 71326 invoked from network); 30 May 2006 16:27:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.2?) (dmsmith555@67.39.27.222 with plain) by smtp109.plus.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 May 2006 16:27:29 -0000 Message-ID: <447C7277.8000205@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:27:35 -0400 From: DM Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Robert Engels wrote: > If you can control them to run 1.4, you can probably control them to run > 1.5. > I cannot control my application's users to run Java 1.4. We moved from Java 1.3 to Java 1.4 only after all platforms our users were running had a Java 1.4 jvm available. We did make a conscious decision to continue support for platforms that our application actually ran on and not to worry about platforms on which our software did not actually run. > Any performance gains offered by 2.1 would pale in comparison to your user's > upgrading their machines. If not, they stick with 2.0 based Lucene, and run > it under 1.4 That's fine if 2.0 is being actively supported with regard to bug fixes that are found after 2.1 is released. That is will the Lucene committers allow contributions of bug fix patches against a 2.0 maintenance branch? > > > Why don't your users run MS-DOS? It would be the fastest on their machines? > They don't because it is impractical. It is also impractical to continue to > develop software against 1.4 when Sun does not actively support it (they > don't fix bugs in it), so the code in Lucene becomes "unclean" when we need > to add "fixes" for JDK issues which are already fixed in a later JVM. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org