Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <1996495608.1254529824609.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mark Miller (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Issue Comment Edited: (LUCENE-1257) Port to Java5
In-Reply-To: <926927359.1207125024848.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257?page=3Dcom.atlassia=
n.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D127=
61785#action_12761785 ]=20

Mark Miller edited comment on LUCENE-1257 at 10/2/09 5:30 PM:
--------------------------------------------------------------

{quote}Actually I patched the Snowball stemmer code to get ridth of the use=
 of reflection. So what we use is an altered version of their code. I tried=
 to get Dr Porter to commit those changes for years but it's still the same=
. Based on this I think we could just keep going with our own stuff in ther=
e as long we keep a record of what we have done in case we want to merge wi=
th their trunk. {quote}

Okay - lets do it then. Testing the English version, its actually almost tw=
ice as fast with a StringBuilder.

I bet it would be almost twice as fast or better again if we could get rid =
of that nasty reflection ...

*edit*

Wait ... do you mean you got rid of some of the reflection or did we lose y=
our changes? I'm seeing some nasty slow reflection in there still ...

*edit*

err... looks like perhaps its only hit once though and then reused.. maybe =
not so nasty. My first time looking at this code, so I'm sure you can clear=
 it up ...

      was (Author: markrmiller@gmail.com):
    {quote}Actually I patched the Snowball stemmer code to get ridth of the=
 use of reflection. So what we use is an altered version of their code. I t=
ried to get Dr Porter to commit those changes for years but it's still the =
same. Based on this I think we could just keep going with our own stuff in =
there as long we keep a record of what we have done in case we want to merg=
e with their trunk. {quote}

Okay - lets do it then. Testing the English version, its actually almost tw=
ice as fast with a StringBuilder.

I bet it would be almost twice as fast or better again if we could get rid =
of that nasty reflection ...

*edit*

Wait ... do you mean you got rid of some of the reflection or did we lose y=
our changes? I'm seeing some nasty slow reflection in there still ...
 =20
> Port to Java5
> -------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1257
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1257
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Analysis, Examples, Index, Other, Query/Scoring, Que=
ryParser, Search, Store, Term Vectors
>    Affects Versions: 2.3.1
>            Reporter: C=C3=A9dric Champeau
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>         Attachments: java5.patch, LUCENE-1257-Document.patch, LUCENE-1257=
-StringBuffer.patch, LUCENE-1257-StringBuffer.patch, LUCENE-1257-StringBuff=
er.patch
>
>
> For my needs I've updated Lucene so that it uses Java 5 constructs. I kno=
w Java 5 migration had been planned for 2.1 someday in the past, but don't =
know when it is planned now. This patch against the trunk includes :
> - most obvious generics usage (there are tons of usages of sets, ... Thos=
e which are commonly used have been generified)
> - PriorityQueue generification
> - replacement of indexed for loops with for each constructs
> - removal of unnececessary unboxing
> The code is to my opinion much more readable with those features (you act=
ually *know* what is stored in collections reading the code, without the ne=
ed to lookup for field definitions everytime) and it simplifies many algori=
thms.
> Note that this patch also includes an interface for the Query class. This=
 has been done for my company's needs for building custom Query classes whi=
ch add some behaviour to the base Lucene queries. It prevents multiple unnn=
ecessary casts. I know this introduction is not wanted by the team, but it =
really makes our developments easier to maintain. If you don't want to use =
this, replace all /Queriable/ calls with standard /Query/.

--=20
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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