lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Engels" <>
Subject RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
Date Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:59:37 GMT
Why not just make 2.1 use 1.5, and if there are enough 1.4 people they can
back-port the changes into 2.0 using JDK 1.4 only code? If they decide it is
too much work, they can move forward to JDK 1.5, stick with Lucene 2.0
release X, or find another search project.

Although I agree with Doug that Lucene is a "library" and there are
different factors that control the dependencies, JDK 1.5 is also no where
near bleeding edge, with several years of stable deployment on many
platforms, and no one is stating that Lucene will not work on those
platforms, just not Lucene 2.1.

It is like trying to support COM on MS-DOS - it just didn't happen (as far
as I know). It was possible, but just wasn't worth the effort.

If Lucene 2.1 encourages other companies that provide JREs to move to
support 1.5 that is even better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Tsang [] 
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

On 6/17/06, Chuck Williams <> wrote:
> Ray Tsang wrote on 06/17/2006 06:29 AM:
> > I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5 
> > code or not.  We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways.  But 
> > we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy.  I believe 
> > the transition from 1.4 to 1.5  is not an over night thing.
> I disagree.  1.5 was specifically designed to make transition easy, 
> including the inclusion of "non-features" that ensure smooth 
> interoperability (e.g., raw types and no runtime presence whatsoever 
> of generics -- quite different from how it was done in .Net 2.0 for

But will 1.4 jvm be able to run the new Lucene w/ 1.5 core?

> >
> > Secondly can we specifically find places where some people _will_ 
> > contribute code immediately if it's 1.5 is accepted?
> I already have.  That's what started this second round of debate.

What is it?  Who else?  How many?  Do we have statistics?  We have
statistics of number of users between 1.4 vs. 1.5 (which btw didn't present
a significant polarization), but how about actual numbers potential of
contributions between the 2?

> >
> > Like what I have suggested before, why not have contribution modules 
> > that act as a transition into 1.5 code?  Much like what other 
> > framework has a "tiger" module.  This module may have say, a 1.5 
> > compatible layer on top of 1.4 core, or other components of lucene 
> > that was made to be extensible, e.g. 1.5 version of QueryParser, 
> > Directory, etc.
> I think this would make it unnecessarily complex.

How is it unnecessary or complex?  If it only means layering, extending
classes, adding implementations, it should be relatively easy with the
existing design.  It's something we do everyday regardless what lucene's
direction takes.

> Chuck
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Lastly,  how did the commercial application people who use Lucene in their
product respond?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message