Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 25971 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2008 11:53:37 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Dec 2008 11:53:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 17350 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2008 11:53:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 17305 invoked by uid 500); 12 Dec 2008 11:53:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 17296 invoked by uid 99); 12 Dec 2008 11:53:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:53:47 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.92.27] (HELO qw-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.92.27) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:53:33 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so298100qwi.53 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.214.45.4 with SMTP id s4mr4981388qas.173.1229082791054; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.17.4.4? (pool-173-48-164-75.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.164.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm2248174ywf.42.2008.12.12.03.53.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:53:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: From: Michael McCandless To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org In-Reply-To: <786fde50812120350s48fc4d68y87ec751ebf6739bc@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Subject: Re: 2.9/3.0 plan & Java 1.5 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:53:07 -0500 References: <9ac0c6aa0812120218u42f5ffd1we938a1b4d04fb9fc@mail.gmail.com>

<786fde50812120350s48fc4d68y87ec751ebf6739bc@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I can certainly see the benefit/temptation of the alternative "big bang" approach. It's just not clear to me (yet) which way (big bang or not) we're planning to go, with 3.x. Mike Shai Erera wrote: > I wonder why do we even have to deprecate ... > A method like public void function( List list ) changes > nothing in terms of API. When people will move to 3.0, they'll have > to change their JDK anyway to 5 (if they haven't already done so). > Which means they had code like: > function(List), and where List was not defined as generics. But > they'll get a warning anyway by the compiler, when they define List, > that it's not safe to create a list w/o defining its type. > > I think that when you move to 5 you have to change a lot of your > code anyway, so simply changing the Lucene API will not create too > much of a hassle for existing applications. > > Personally I'd hate to find out I have to change my entire > application because method/classes names were changed. > > Shai > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Michael McCandless > wrote: > > Ryan McKinley wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2008, at 5:18 AM, Michael McCandless wrote: > > > Taking this to java-dev (off Jira)... > > Mark Miller (Jira) wrote: > > > I thought there were some that wanted to change some of the API to > java > > 5 for the 3.0 release, cause I thought back compat was less > restricted > > 2-3. I guess mabye that won't end up happening, if it was going > to, it > > seems we'd want to deprecate what will be changed in 2.9. > > I could easily be confused on this... but I thought 3.0 is the first > release that's allowed to include Java 1.5 only APIs (eg generics). > > Meaning, we could in theory intro APIs with generics with 3.0, > deprecating the non-generics versions, and then 4.0 (sounds insanely > far away!) would be the first release that could remove the deprecated > non-generics versions? > > That said, I think the "plan" is to release 2.9 soonish (early next > year?), and then fairly quickly turnaround a 3.0 that doesn't have too > many changes except the removal of the deprecated (in 2.9) APIs. Ie > in practice it won't be until 3.1 when we would intro new > (generics-based) APIs. > > > > What are examples of the deprecated non-generic APIs? > > My understanding would be that in 2.9 we have: > public void function( List list ); > and in 3.0 > public void function( List list ); > > How do you keep both functions around? > > We'd have to change the name? Or deprecate the whole class > containing these methods (if there are lots of methods to > deprecate)? Definitely something of a hassle. > > Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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