lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From mark harwood <markharw...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: The JDK 1.5 Can o' Worms
Date Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:19:51 GMT
>>Mostly, though, I think it gives Lucene Java the feel that we are  behind.  Isn't 1.6
the actual official release at this point?

I wouldn't say "behind", just concerned about enabling Lucene for all - in the same way popular
websites might choose broad accessibility over using the latest AJAX gizmos. 
There's always a significant lag in adoption and I'm still seeing clients mandating 1.4 due
to their corporate infrastructure.

Having said this, I think it is not unreasonable to now leave those stuck on Java 1.4 with
a Lucene 2.9 version and move Lucene 3.0 on to Java 1.5.


Cheers,
Mark




----- Original Message ----
From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 25 July, 2007 12:18:27 PM
Subject: Re: The JDK 1.5 Can o' Worms 


On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:39 PM, DM Smith wrote:

>
> On Jul 24, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>>  I am going to guess that GCJ will always be significantly behind  
>> Sun's Java,
>
> There is an effort to release OpenJDK. That will be Java 1.7 (my  
> cynicism is perhaps later). I can't find the web page now, but it  
> appears that it will stall gcj development. Gcj is still not yet  
> compatible with all of java 1.4.2 (mostly in swing) and even  
> further behind 1.5.0.
>
> The problem of going to something that gcj does not support is that  
> it is likely that Lucene won't be upgraded in Linux distributions  
> as the (L)GPL effectively handcuffs programs that can't provide  
> complete open source. This is explicit with GPL v3.
>
> It is hard enough to get it updated as it is. Currently, Lucene  
> 1.9.1 is the level that is available in JPackage and also in  
> Fedora. (I have supplied an rpm spec for 2.0 and 2.2, but it still  
> hasn't gone forward).
>

I think this just adds to the feeling that we shouldn't have to  
wait.  I think it stands to reason that even if GCJ had full 1.5  
support, it would take a good amount of time to find its way into the  
Linux distributions as the official release, and the same goes for  
Lucene 2.4 and 2.9.  Thus, in my mind, you actually have a good 6  
months to a year before Linux users could even consider updates to  
the latest anyway.  I know where I work we are usually manually  
compiling packages, etc. b/c the official distribution package is so  
far behind.


> With regard to the Mac, OSX 10.4 has a penetration of over 80% (I  
> forget the exact number), leaving the rest (OSX 10.2 and OSX 10.3)  
> with Java 1.4 or lower. Java 1.5 will never be available on earlier  
> platforms. OSX 10.4 is just over 2 years old.
>
> So Grant, to your point, the situation with regard to Java runtime  
> engines has not changed much in a year. The arguments back then are  
> still just as valid today. And I'm still just as opposed to it  
> today as I was then. However, I won't reiterate the same points as  
> the situation has not significantly changed. We can all go back and  
> dig up the old thread.
>

Yep, I understand.  I realize this move has some downsides and I  
don't tread here lightly, but I think the downsides are mitigated by  
the fact that we can do 2 more releases on 1.4 and you will have some  
significant performance improvements in the meantime and that Lucene  
is already quite mature such that there is no shame in being on 2.9  
when it comes around.

> And in the last year, I have greatly appreciated the performance  
> improvements. They have been awesome! Let's keep up the good work.
>
> And my offer to back port still stands. I'd just like to see us not  
> fork. Perhaps accept 1.5 patches, but don't apply them until back  
> ported.

I am glad you have offered to back port and we probably can take you  
up on the offer, but I don't think we can agree to the second part,  
simply because of the math.  There are, right now anyway, 4-5 pretty  
active committers and only 1 of you.  I don't see how you could keep  
up unless you have an automated tool to help or it was your full time  
job.

>
> As to what led to this conversation, I bet we can find/invent an  
> acceptable substitute for StringBuilder.

Actually, my main reason was when I was digging into some methods  
that used Collections that weren't documented as to what is in the  
Collection.  It is annoying at best to have to open up the source to  
go figure out what is in a Collection.

Another factor is, when you code all day in 1.5 and all your macros/ 
live templates are setup for 1.5 constructs and you out of habit do  
things in 1.5, I find myself constantly correcting until my brain  
finally says "its 1.4, dummy".  I know this is just looking for  
excuses, but I think the little things really start to add up.

Mostly, though, I think it gives Lucene Java the feel that we are  
behind.  Isn't 1.6 the actual official release at this point?  I'm  
not proposing to go there just yet, and I don't think we should.

Cheers,
Grant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org






      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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