lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Finishing Lucene 2.9
Date Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:50:49 GMT
Please read the archives on the 1.5 move.  We have discussed it many  
times.  There is also a Wiki page on it under the committers section.   
While technically it breaks back compatibility, we are going forward  
with it and we decided to allow generics, etc. right from the start.   
We also didn't feel like we had to convert everything in one fell  
swoop, either, as that will break many existing patches.


On Aug 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:

> It would *not* break apps without generics, if the „upper” type is  
> the same (which is easily fulfilled by my example with the  
> AttributeSource). The whole 1.5 Java Collection API uses generics  
> and 1.4 programs still run.
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
> From: Shai Erera [mailto:serera@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:05 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Finishing Lucene 2.9
>
> What will be w/ generics? Won't they break cack-compat as soon as we  
> add them (e.g., if we move to accepting parameters as generics - it  
> may break an application which does not use generics yet). I think  
> that the move to 1.5 needs to include the generics as well, unless  
> we're willing to break back-compat later on.
>
> Shai
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> Michael McCandless wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Mark  
> Miller<markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I forgot about this oddity. Its so weird. Its like we are doing two
> >> releases on top of each other - it just seems confusing.
> >>
> >
> > I'm also not wed to the "fast turnaround" (remove deprecations,  
> switch
> > to generics) 3.0 release.
> >
> > We could, instead, take out time doing the 3.0 release, ie let it
> > include new features too.
> >
> > I thought I had read a motivation for the 1.9 -> 2.0 fast  
> turnaround,
> > but I can't remember it nor find it now...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> I thought the motivation was to provide a clean upgrade path with the
> deprecations - you move to 2.9 and move from all the deprecated  
> methods
> - then you move to 3.0 and your good with no deprecations. I'd guess  
> the
> worry is that new features in 3.0 would add new deprecations and its  
> not
> quite so clean?
>
> Personally, I think thats fine though. New deprecations will come in  
> 3.1
> anyway. You can still move everything in 2.9, and then move to 3.0 -  
> so
> what if something else is now deprecated? You can move again or wait  
> for
> 3.9 to move ...
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/

Search the Lucene ecosystem (Lucene/Solr/Nutch/Mahout/Tika/Droids)  
using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search


Mime
View raw message