Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750)
In-Reply-To: <f18c9dde0605290830j7d3161b5ob6a794b995a91cf1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20060529041711.42980.qmail@web50315.mail.yahoo.com>
 <7243115437092401652@unknownmsgid>
 <f18c9dde0605290830j7d3161b5ob6a794b995a91cf1@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <83A0B175-806C-47B2-8158-51267AF50730@ehatchersolutions.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Hatcher <erik@ehatchersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 13:52:10 -0400
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org

To weigh in with my take, all environments I develop and deploy to  
are at JDK/JRE 1.5.  Solr is exclusively for 1.5+ and it has top  
billing my architecture.  GData server at 1.5 is perfectly fine by  
me.  I'd use it, and very interested in Solr collaboration as well.

	Erik


On May 29, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:

> I guess this discussion isn't over...
> I would like to know if anybody would feel uncomfortable with a 1.5
> dependend contrib project like the GData Server?
>
> I'm not sure whether it is worth to think about a 2.0 / 2.1 (tiger)
> branch. That would be a lot more work but far less fight ;)
>
> simon
>
> On 5/29/06, Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.com> wrote:
>> Boy, I'd sure like to see at least one bug-fix release for 2.0
>> maintain java 1.4 compatibility.  Would that be 2.1?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> > This sounds reasonable to me.  I feel bad about Andi and  
>> PyLucene, but it sounds like GCJ(X) will soon be up-to-date (the  
>> link Andi sent was from early February).  Discussion done or?
>> >
>> > Otis
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Chris Hostetter <hossman_lucene@fucit.org>
>> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:12:15 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
>> >
>> > : important new facilities. Repeating my earlier question, why  
>> should a
>> > : platform that is 2 years behind for java expect to be at the  
>> latest and
>> > : greatest level for lucene? I'd propose 2.0 (+ branched  
>> patches) be the
>> > : 1.4 release distribution, with 2.1 free to move up to 1.5.
>> >
>> > I would ammend that proposal slightly...
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > -Hoss
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org