lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DM Smith <>
Subject Re: Java 1.5 (was ommented: (LUCENE-565) Supporting deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided))
Date Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:07:41 GMT
	First let me say, I don't want to rehash the arguments for or  
against Java 1.5. We can all go back and read the last two major  
threads on the issue. I don't think there is anything new to say.

	However, I think statements like:
		"no strong arguments" (I think the arguments were reasonable)
		"only a few people argued for it" (Only a few argued against it)
		"very little interest" (Very few votes are on any Jira issue, so  
what does that say)
		"adversaries" (I am not an adversary, I am a very interested party  
with a personal interest in the outcome)
	are inflammatory.

	I am willing to do the back port if it is possible and if it does  
not do violence to the implementation.

	There are a number of patches sitting in Jira and it is not clear to  
me which are even close to being applied. I am not interested in  
doing work on patches that are old or might sit around for a while  
until they are applied (and therefore become out of sync).

	If the patches are identified as being worthy of being applied and  
are also identified as being Java 1.5, I will port it and it's test  
if it make sense.

	It has already been granted that contrib allow Java 1.5. So I  
presume that the build has been updated to allow for 1.5 in contrib  
and not in core. If this is not the case I think that the first  
committer (or submitter) of Java 1.5 code to contrib has the  
responsibility to change the build system (or at least ensure that it  
is done.)

	As to the build system, I am not the right person to see that it  
works. I am using Eclipse to do the builds. I maintain 2 workspaces,  
one with core only and that is Java 1.4.2 and the other is core and  
contrib and that is Java 1.5. I have done this so I can help "back  
port" to Java 1.4.

	However, I think you have identified that the core people need to  
make a decision and the rest of us need to go with it. So, I suggest  
that Doug convene such a meeting of the minds and communicate the  
decision to the rest of us.


On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> Hi Chuck,
> I think bulk update would be good (although I'm not sure how it  
> would be different from batching deletes and adds, but I'm sure  
> there is a difference, or else you wouldn't have done it).
> Java 1.5 - no conclusion, but personally I felt:
> - no strong arguments for 1.4, only a few people argued for it
> - very little interest from 1.4 adversaries in helping with  
> backporting to 1.4 or updating the build system to do the retro  
> thing with 1.5 code
> So I think you should contribute your code.  This will give us a  
> real example of having something possibly valuable, and written  
> with 1.5 features, so we can finalize 1.4 vs. 1.5 discussion,  
> probably with a vote on lucene-dev.
> Otis
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Chuck Williams <>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2006 5:07:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-565) Supporting  
> deleteDocuments in IndexWriter (Code and Performance Results Provided)
> robert engels wrote on 07/06/2006 12:24 PM:
>> I guess we just chose a much simpler way to do this...
>> Even with you code changes, to see the modification made using the
>> IndexWriter, it must be closed, and a new IndexReader opened.
>> So a far simpler way is to get the collection of updates first, then
>> using opened indexreader,
>> for each doc in collection
>>       delete document using "key"
>> endfor
>> open indexwriter
>> for each doc in collection
>>       add document
>> endfor
>> open indexreader
>> I don't see how your way is any faster. You must always flush to disk
>> and open the indexreader to see the changes.
> ....
> Bulk updates however require yet another approach.  Sorry to change
> topics here, but I'm wondering if there was a final decision on the
> question of java 1.5 in the core.  If I submitted a bulk update
> capability that required java 1.5, would it be eligible for  
> inclusion in
> the core or not?
> Chuck
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message