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: domain of simon.willnauer@googlemail.com
 designates 66.249.92.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=googlemail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=lGjFByxzLTBhPeJSsViK5hAEd8+nPSHi+C9yiGVqteR6FVMNA6/4Xl/0w4+beGlMp7EIfTwLx5HzB92y6DXv0ml3MIIxu5NNFJaMj0dnPe4+qpSd+Yx0gslRisiaEQmK5iC/cH2cnNijgGtRjcOMv7aBP2wEvnQwyrdDcOsK2Hk=
Message-ID: <f18c9dde0605300440o7862103cwc44028d6ec30d20b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 13:40:00 +0200
From: "Simon Willnauer" <simon.willnauer@googlemail.com>
Reply-To: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
In-Reply-To: <447C2A5B.4070908@syr.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1148720927.5049.47.camel@localhost>
	 <c68e39170605271150m29b3413r3e50af47d59bbf46@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060527200918.GB5422@curie-int.vc.shawcable.net>
	 <1148763043.30969.20.camel@localhost>
	 <20060527210509.GD5422@curie-int.vc.shawcable.net>
	 <1148765238.30969.38.camel@localhost>
	 <Pine.OSX.4.64.0605271450240.27334@zoe.ovaltofu.org>
	 <4478DB8E.40309@manawiz.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0605271608290.23448@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu>
	 <447C2A5B.4070908@syr.edu>

I use 1.5 JVM since 1.5 years building 1.4 and 1.5 projects which
works perfect. But if you are afraid of the management you could still
modify your local build process to set JAVA_HOME variables during
build.
Multiple JVM on a system should not be a problem AFAIK.
Won't that solve the problem?!

Simon

On 5/30/06, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@syr.edu> wrote:
> Would this mean that people checking out Lucene source (especially the
> core) could possibly need 2 or more JDKs on their machines in order to
> do a build?  I know it is would be automated through the build scripts,
> but it seems like _it could_ degenerate into a management nightmare.
> What if people require specific JVM minor releases do to JVM bug fixes
> or if they require 1.6?
>
> Chris Hostetter wrote:
> > : 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Grant Ingersoll
> Sr. Software Engineer
> Center for Natural Language Processing
> Syracuse University
> School of Information Studies
> 335 Hinds Hall
> Syracuse, NY 13244
>
> http://www.cnlp.org
> Voice:  315-443-5484
> Fax: 315-443-6886
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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