Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14715 invoked from network); 11 May 2006 17:37:44 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2006 17:37:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 64847 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2006 17:37:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 64798 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2006 17:37:41 -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 64755 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2006 17:37:40 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:37:40 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [209.86.89.68] (HELO smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.68) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:37:39 -0700 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=a8km86shP1A0jCOpwrvcurk9W4BzLXxZC6NV2Wnt0bgYorB0L9h64BDijulHb142; h=Received:Reply-To:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Importance:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [66.245.135.50] (helo=ENGELSSERVER) by smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FeF6B-0003Se-Qo for java-dev@lucene.apache.org; Thu, 11 May 2006 13:37:16 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Robert Engels" To: Subject: RE: Taking a step back Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 12:37:18 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <44637247.5010707@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-ELNK-Trace: 33cbdd8ed9881ca8776432462e451d7bd15d05d9470ff710b0f704253767f0ed6f6f5e8cbeaa2a89350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.245.135.50 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Exactly. If people don't get the REAL value of Java by now, they are probably not going to ever get it. Weighing ALL of the pros/cons, developing modern software in anything else is just silly. But, arguing this is akin to discussing religion... -----Original Message----- From: Doug Cutting [mailto:cutting@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 12:20 PM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Taking a step back Marvin Humphrey wrote: > The only question is whether there are Java-specific optimizations > which are so advantageous that they outweigh the benefits of > interchange. It's not just optimizations. If we, e.g., wrote, for each field, the name of the codec class that it uses, then we could provide arbitrary extensibility. Anything that implemented the field codec API could be used, permitting alternate posting compression algorithms, etc. But that would not be friendly to other implementations, which may not be able to easily instantiate classses from class names, nor dynamically download codec implementations from a public repository, etc. The fact that java bytecode is portable makes this more attractive. Doug --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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