lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tatu Saloranta <cowtownco...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2006 23:54:23 GMT
--- Robert Engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> It was a joke. 

;-)

Yes, I did realize that. But I have seen earlier
references, with more serious tone... and it did seem
like some people actually believed 1.4 compatibility
was a "back to stone age" requirement.

Anyway, lots of good points being presented and all:
and in the end I'm lucky enough that none of my
current (or immediate work) will be on pre-1.5
platform.

-+ Tatu +-

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:cowtowncoder@yahoo.com]
> 
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:55 AM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java
> 1.4 vs. 1.5)
> 
> --- Robert Engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
> > 
> > If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you
> stick with version 1.9 
> > (or 2.0 in this case).
> > 
> > If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
> > 
> > Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior
> versions. At some point 
> > though you need to be able to move forward since
> developers may not be 
> > trained in the "legacy" environment.
> 
> While this is true, I thinks that comparisons of
> Lucene to, say, MS-DOS are
> at best a knee-jerk comments, or otherwise imply
> some lack of perspective
> and common sense (probably former though).
> Lucene has moved away from JDK 1.1 support, and at
> this point 1.4 is
> probably the baseline. This has happened over time,
> as platform has
> advanced. And it's bit curious as to what the
> current mad rush regarding
> migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
> sugar, only the
> concurrency package seems like a tempting immediate
> reason?
> 
> Now, I think Doug had best points regarding inertia
> that low-level libraries
> and components should consider. Apps are first to
> move to newest versions;
> top-level libraries then, and finally fundamental
> components and engines. I
> would think Lucene falls into this category: it has
> few dependencies of its
> own, but has tons of downstream dependencies.
> 
> I don't know if this has suggested yet, but how
> about switching to 1.5, when
> Sun declares 1.6 to be the official stable JDK (ie.
> when it comes out of its
> beta status)?
> 
> Anyway, it obviously comes down to the active
> committers to decide the
> time/version for the cut-off.
> But I hope it can be a practical decision made with
> cool minds.
> 
> -+ Tatu +-
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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


Mime
View raw message