lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why release 3.0?
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:21:06 GMT
Good point - and that likely means the current warning is not working -
what can we do to improve it?

Perhaps a new text file called jflexregen or something, and it
specifically says you must use java 1.5?

Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> I think the regenerated code in Standard is since years no longer
> generated with 1.4 J Most developers use 1.5 or even 1.6. So it
> already changed incompatible…
>
>  
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
>
>  
>
> Uwe, thats probably a good solution I think. just as long as we
> document somewhere,
> I think there is some warning verbage in StandardTokenizer already
> about this.
>
> NOTE: if you change StandardTokenizerImpl.jflex and need to regenerate
>       the tokenizer, remember to use JRE 1.4 to run jflex (before
>       Lucene 3.0).  This grammar now uses constructs (eg :digit:,
>       :letter:) whose meaning can vary according to the JRE used to
>       run jflex.  See
>       https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1126 for details.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de
> <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>> wrote:
>
> But it is a general warning that should be placed in the Wiki: If you
> upgrade from Java 1.4 to Java 5, think about reindexing.
>
>  
>
> It has definitely nothing to do with 3.0, because uses could have
> changed (and most of them have) before.
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 PM
>
>
> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
>
>  
>
> right, my point is its true its nothing to do with Lucene at all, really.
>
> but the reality is we should clarify this to users I think.
>
> Its especially complex in the current StandardTokenizer, which uses a
> mix of hardcoded ranges and properties, can you tell me if you should
> reindex for given language X?
> I wouldn't want to answer that question right now.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de
> <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>> wrote:
>
> We tried out: Character.getType() for these two chars:
>
>  
>
> Java 5:
> '\u00AD' = 16
> '\u06DD' = 16
>
> Java 1.4:
> '\u00AD' = 20
> '\u06DD' = 7
>
>  
>
> The first is the soft hyphen.
>
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:37 PM
>
>
> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
>
>  
>
> right, its nothing to do with lucene, instead due to property changes,
> etc.
>
> i just think we should inform users on java 1.4/2.9 that if they
> upgrade to java 1.5/3.0, they should reindex.
>
> the reason i say this about properties, is there are some that change
> that will affect tokenizers, i give two examples, a hyphen that
> changes from punctuation to format (might affect SolrWordDelimiterFilter),
> and arabic ayah which changes from NSM to format, which surely affects
> ArabicLetterTokenizer.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Steven A Rowe <sarowe@syr.edu
> <mailto:sarowe@syr.edu>> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I agree that the Unicode version supported by the JVM, as you say,
> really has nothing to do with Lucene.
>
> The disruption here is users' upgrading from Java 1.4 to 1.5+, not
> when they upgrade Lucene.  I'd guess with few exceptions that most
> people have been using Lucene with 1.5+ for a couple of years now, though.
>
> But even the upgrade from Java 1.4 to 1.5+ will have (had) zero impact
> on most Lucene users, assuming that most use Latin-1 exclusively;
> although I haven't looked, I'd be surprised if Latin-1 characters
> changed much, if at all, from Unicode 3.0 to 4.0.
>
> It would be useful, I think, to include (a pointer to?) a description
> of the details of the Unicode 3.0->4.0 differences in the Lucene 3.0
> release notes, since the minimum required Java version, and so also
> the supported Unicode version, changes then.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 11/16/2009 at 2:15 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> > the problem is that the properties have changed for various characters,
> > and new characters were added.
> >
> > it really has nothing to do with lucene, but the idea you can go from
> > jdk 1.4/lucene 2.9 to jdk 1.5/lucene3.0 without reindexing is not true.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de
> <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >       But an UTF-8 stream from Java 4 can still be read with Java 5,
> > what is the problem? Java 5 extended Unicode support, but an index
> > created with older versions can still be read. UTF-8 is standardized…
> >
> >
> >
> >       -----
> >       Uwe Schindler
> >       H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >       http://www.thetaphi.de
> >       eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >       From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com
> <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>]
> >       Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:09 PM
> >
> >       To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> >       Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
> >
> >
> >
> >       uwe, on topic please read my comment on LUCENE-1689, because
> > unicode version was bumped in jdk 1.5, i believe this index backwards
> > compatibility is only theoretical
> >
> >       On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de
> <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>> wrote:
> >
> >       2.9 has *not* the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0
> > cannot be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support was
> > removed and therefore the version number of the stored fields file was
> > upgraded. But indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and support may get
> > removed in 4.0. 3.0 Indexes can be read until version 4.9.
> >
> >
> >
> >       Uwe
> >
> >       -----
> >       Uwe Schindler
> >       H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> >       http://www.thetaphi.de
> >       eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >       From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com
> <mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com>]
> >       Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM
> >
> >
> >       To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> >
> >       Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
> >
> >
> >
> >       Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be
> > necessarily able to read your
> >       2.4 index file formats?  I suppose if you've already upgraded to
> > 2.9, then all is well because
> >       2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users
> > upgraded from 2.4 to 2.9.
> >
> >       If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary,
> > but if you're on 2.4 right now,
> >       you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1.
> >
> >         -jake
> >
> >       On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson
> > <erickerickson@gmail.com <mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >       One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see
> > if everyone's assumptions are aligned. So with the discussion about
> > branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is there going to be any 3.0 release
> > intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a lot of
> > work by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch
> > and carrying on with 3.1 as the first *supported* 3.x release?
> >
> >       Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm not
> > sure *as a user* I see a good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a
> > "beta/snapshot" release to get a head start on cleaning up my code
> > does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And having a base
> > 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful
> > for that.
> >
> >       That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release"
> > that's out there and unsupported.
> >
> >       Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't
> > remember it. Although my memory isn't what it used to be (but
> > some would claim it never was<G>)...
> >
> >       Erick
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
>


-- 
- 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


Mime
View raw message