lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "DM Smith" <dmsmith...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:17:57 GMT
On 6/21/06, Robert Engels <rengels@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> It sounds like you did something ill-advised. Why change your code to 1.5if
> a significant portion of your users can run it, and the previous release
> was
> not essentially bug free (if it was, your users would not have seen any
> difference).


It was ill advised. When we heard that  Java 5 was released for MacOS, we
did not read the fine print (i.e. for  10.4 and higher only). Shame on us.
It was a fun experiment though:) Our thought was to have a consistent code
style throughout. We did not want Java 5 syntax to creep in gradually only
as code was changed.

The previous release was essentially bug free.


It also seems very unlikely you need any significant changes to Lucene (I
> reviewed your projects),



I appreciate that you took a look at it!


and if Lucene progresses along with the current
> state of hardware your users won't be able to  run it anyway.



Correct. Our use of Lucene  is very simple, but very central to our product.
That is why I have suggested in a separate thread that the central core of
lucene be maintained from all the other great additions.

I am not sure what you mean by "if Lucene progresses...." I am impressed
with how Lucene performs on an old Windows box and on an old iMac. Are you
saying that future releases will have a bigger resource footprint?


I still don't understand the harm in BibleDesktop staying at 2.0 (even
> forever if you'd like - so you'd have one version).



The only harm would be that I could not provide them with new features that
are implemented in Java 1.5 Lucene. Same goes for bugs and performance
enhancements.

And we may very well have to do that at the point that Lucene embraces
1.5for its fundamental features.


At some point Lucene
> WILL BE 1.5, your users will still not be able to run it - what would you
> do
> then - you would run the last version of Lucene that worked with 1.4.2.



Yes. That will be the case.

Your users obviously don't use the latest and greatest software, so why
> should Lucene be any different.



Our users want the latest and greatest BibleDesktop (at any rate, that's
what we tell ourselves). Lucene is immaterial to them.

In the meantime, maybe the good lord will see fit to perform some miracle
> and upgrade your user's systems.



I would like that very much!


-----Original Message-----
> From: DM Smith [mailto:dmsmith555@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:58 AM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> > This sounds reasonable to me...
>
> But it is not at all reasonable for us. Our application is designed with a
> write one, run anywhere mentality for the hardware/OS base that our users
> currently have. Again many of our users use old, beyond belief machines
> that
> anyone in their right mind would have gotten rid of. Wait, that's
> precisely
> why they have them. They are hand me downs from those who were in their
> right mind....
>
> Recently we went through an exercise to "migrate" to Java 5. We upgraded
> all
> our iterator loops, made the use of collections type- safe, added
> annotations, refactored our type-safe enums..., every last new language
> feature was examined and applied if it did not affect performance. There
> was
> really no necessity to do it. We did it for "fun."
>
> That release was not received well and we found out that we have a much
> larger base of users on Mac 10.3 and earlier.
>
> Unfortunately, we also made other material changes and going back to Java
> 1.4 was a fall forward rather than a revert. But we did go back to Java
> 1.4.
>
> All releases of BibleDesktop for the last 4 years support MacOS 9 and
> higher, Windows 98 and higher (don't know whether it runs on Win95) and
> Linux as far back as I know.
>
>
> >
> > Robert Engels wrote:
> >> I don't follow...
> >>
> >> If a user came to you and said I want to run BibleDesktop, and they
> >> have MS-DOS, you would tell them you can't (or you might have to run
> >> the very old BibleDesktop 1.0).
> >>
> >> If they told you they have Windows 98 with Java 1.4 and 256mb or
> >> memory, you would say you can run BibleDesktop 2.0 (which includes
> >> Lucene 2.0).
> >>
> >> If they told you they have Windows XP with Java 1.5, you would say
> >> you can run BibleDesktop 3.0 (which includes Lucene 2.1).
> >>
> >> Certainly seems like a packaging/marketing issue for you. Your users
> >> would not know if they were running Lucene 1.4, 1.9 2.0 or 2.1, nor
> >> would they care.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: DM Smith [mailto:dmsmith555@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20,
> >> 2006 5:17 PM
> >> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>  ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: DM Smith
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 6/20/06, Otis Gospodnetic  wrote: Sorry, for some reason my Yahoo
> >>> email doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so I'll use "OG" for my lines.
> >>>
> >>> In my situation, I am constantly working on improving an open source
> >>> application. Our use of Lucene is very trivial (from a lucene
> >>> perspective) but critical to the application. If there are bug
> >>> fixes, enhancements and performance improvements, I want to use them
> >>> to improve my user's experience. So, each time there is a release of
> >>> Lucene, I get it, test it and if it in itself offers an improvement,
> >>> I release our application just upgrading the lucene jar.
> >>>
> >>> OG: Again, there have been a LOT of JVM and JDK improvements since
> >>> 1.4, too, but you are still using 1.4.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I am using the Java 5 compiler to build a 1.4 compatible binary.
> >> So I  get the compiler improvements for all my users.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> OG: But I benchmarked Java 1.4 and 1.5 a few weeks ago.  1.5 is
> >>> _substantially_ faster.  If you want performance improvements, why
> >>> not also upgrade Java then?  Ths really bugs me.  People want the
> >>> latest and greatest Lucene, but are okay with the old Java, yet
> >>> they claim they want performance, bug fixes, etc.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not up to me. Each user of BibleDesktop has to decide for
> >> themselves. Users of MacOS 10.3 and earlier are stuck using Java
> >> 1.4.  Users that have upgraded to Java 5 get the advantages of
> >> that  runtime. As for me I am running Java 5.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> One can get the performance gains just by using the Java 5 jre.
> >>>
> >>> OG: Correct.  But one can also not get a performance improvement
> >>> or  a bug fix if it comes as part of an external contribution
> >>> that  happens to use 1.5 because the contributor uses 1.5 in his/
> >>> her work  and doesn't have time to "downgrade" the code, just so
> >>> it can be  accepted in Lucene.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> That's the core argument that you are making and it is a good one.
> >> If  it could be designated in Jira whether the attachment were
> >> Java 5  then others (perhaps myself) could take the patch,
> >> downgrade it and  attach it to the same issue. It sure would beat
> >> forking the project.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> How many external contributions are to the "core" Lucene?
> >>> If the "core" Lucene contribution can be applied and then
> >>> "downgraded" to Java 1.4 easily, what harm is in that?
> >>>
> >>>   OG: I don't know the number, but JIRA would be the place to
> >>> look.  My guess is about a dozen or more people.
> >>> Steve Rowe found something that can "downgrade" 1.5 code to 1.4
> >>> and  looks promising.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If so then perhaps the committers could run the code through it
> >> after  applying the patch. Then the contributers would not be
> >> adversely  affected.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message