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 12:57:43 GMT

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


Mime
View raw message