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 Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:38:15 GMT
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

-----Original Message-----
From: DM Smith [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:17 PM
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  

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

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

View raw message