lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ray Tsang" <saturn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
Date Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:52:36 GMT
On 6/19/06, Chuck Williams <chuck@manawiz.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ray Tsang wrote on 06/19/2006 09:06 AM:
> > On 6/17/06, Chuck Williams <chuck@manawiz.com> 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
> >> example).
> >
> > But will 1.4 jvm be able to run the new Lucene w/ 1.5 core?
>
> If 1.5 features are fully embraced, no.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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?
>
> ParallelWriter (see LUCENE-600).  I have quite a few more behind that.
> Whether or not various people will find them useful is tbd, but they are
> all working well for me and essential to meet my requirements, and some
> are for things often requested on the various lists (e.g., a general
> purpose fast bulk index updater that supports arbitrary transformations
> on the values of fields).

That sounds great actually!  Would you say it does not necessarily
need to go into the core?  I would use something like that though.

>
> > 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?
>
> There has been a proposal to poll java-dev for this.  Wagers on the outcome?
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
> Contributing to Lucene is a volunteer effort.  The more difficult you
> make it, the fewer people will do it.  That's what this is all about.
> Accept 1.5 contributions and I believe you will get more high quality
> contributions.  Of course, this comes at a high cost for those who
> cannot transition to 1.5, since they would need to stick with Lucene 2.0.x.

Don't get me wrong.  My point is _not_ not to accept 1.5 code.  By all
means we should accept it.  But it'll be better if there is a simple
way to accept it while at least majority of lucene-core.jar is
compatible w/ 1.4 at bytecode level, while, say, lucene-tiger.jar are
add ons for full 1.5 specific code that will not be bytecode
compatible with 1.4?

>
> If I had a vote on this, honestly I'm not sure how I would vote.  It's a
> tough call either way.  Do you support a significant minority of users
> and contributors who are stuck on an old java platform, or do you strike
> forward with a more robust contributing community from the majority at
> the cost of cutting out the minority from the latest and greatest?  My
> first comment on this topic was something like, "why would somebody who
> is on an old java platform expect to have the latest and greatest
> lucene?".  I think if I was stuck on 1.4, I wouldn't be happy about a
> 1.5 decision for lucene 2.1+, but I would understand it, accept it, and
> do whatever I could to speed my transition to 1.5.

I would agree, but i'm sure there can be compromises.

>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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