lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@syr.edu>
Subject Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:52:46 GMT
This sounds reasonable to me...

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


Mime
View raw message