lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From DM Smith <dmsmith...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why release 3.0?
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:37:47 GMT
I'm not sure that anyone is forced to go to Java 5. I think it is more that some will be stuck
on Java 1.4. My guess is that other than those that are on a very old version of MacOSX (i.e.
10.3 aka Panther, Oct 2003-Apr 2005) everyone else is using Java 5 or Java 6 already.

Is core lucene really affected by the change? Or is it only contrib? I mean, if we couldn't
create an index using core with surrogate pairs and other Unicode 4.0 stuff (though I'm not
clear on the changes), how can it change reading/searching the index?

-- DM

On Nov 16, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

> this fixes the standardTokenizer (thanks!!), but thats different, because its not dependent
on the end users JVM.
> 
> i think we still need a warning to users, Mark opened an issue about it, because other
tokenizers are dependent on the end users JVM, and we are forcing them to upgrade to 1.5
> 
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Uwe Schindler <uwe@thetaphi.de> wrote:
> I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2074
> 
> It fixes the problem, the patch uses a different impl depending on
> matchVersion.
> 
> If I commit it now, I would regenerate the rc1 artifacts and release the
> tomorrow to java-user. Currently the ones on people.apache.org are only
> "known" to java-dev users.
> 
> -----
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de]
> > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:59 PM
> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Why release 3.0?
> >
> > OK, I checked. The JFLEX file in tunk was 1.4 generated. I regenerated
> > with
> > 1.5 and it was different (completely!). I saved the old version and
> > renamed
> > to StandardTokenizerImplJava14 extends StandardTokenizerImpl
> >
> > By this the impl is exchanged depending on version. The 1.4 version can no
> > longer be regenerated because it has no .jflex file and should really
> > never
> > be regenerated.
> >
> > -----
> > Uwe Schindler
> > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:45 PM
> > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
> > >
> > > I still reccomend we add a file then HowToRegenJflex.txt or something -
> > > that specifically says to use 1.5 or 1.6. I don't changing the current
> > > notice/warning is visible enough to ensure someone doesn't break this.
> > >
> > > Robert Muir wrote:
> > > > no. its still 4.0, but i hear 1.7 will be 5.1 or 5.2
> > > >
> > > > the only way to truly control this, would be to use something like ICU
> > > > to control the unicode version being used (and actually be faster, and
> > > > support higher version).
> > > > see http://site.icu-project.org/home/why-use-icu4j
> > > >
> > > > the issue is that lucene does not have 3rd party library dependencies,
> > > > on the other hand, i think tika and/or nutch already incorporate icu
> > > > for charset detection.
> > > >
> > > > i won't argue for this really, i know nobody wants it, but you can see
> > > > how the situation of not being able to control unicode semantics is
> > > > really difficult for a search engine.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Uwe Schindler <uschindler@pangaea.de
> > > > <mailto:uschindler@pangaea.de>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     Did 1.6 change the unicode version? Robert?
> > > >
> > > >     -----
> > > >     UWE SCHINDLER
> > > >     Webserver/Middleware Development
> > > >     PANGAEA - Publishing Network for Geoscientific and Environmental
> > > Data
> > > >     MARUM - University of Bremen
> > > >     Room 2500, Leobener Str., D-28359 Bremen
> > > >     Tel.: +49 421 218 65595
> > > >     Fax:  +49 421 218 65505
> > > >     http://www.pangaea.de/
> > > >     E-mail <http://www.pangaea.de/%0AE-mail>: uschindler@pangaea.de
> > > >     <mailto:uschindler@pangaea.de>
> > > >
> > > >     > -----Original Message-----
> > > >     > From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>]
> > > >     > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:30 PM
> > > >     > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-
> > dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
> > > >     >
> > > >     > And what happens when someone regenerates it with 1.6 without
> > > >     knowing?
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Uwe Schindler wrote:
> > > >     > > I check this by generating the file with 1.4 and 1.5. The
1.4
> > > >     version
> > > >     > will
> > > >     > > not change anymore, so we just leave the java file no jflex
> > > >     anymore. The
> > > >     > old
> > > >     > > one is used for Lucene until 2.9, if you use
> > > >     matchVersion=LUCENE_30, the
> > > >     > new
> > > >     > > one is used, which can also be regenerated.
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > > -----
> > > >     > > Uwe Schindler
> > > >     > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
> > > >     > > http://www.thetaphi.de
> > > >     > > eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >     > >> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:markrmiller@gmail.com>]
> > > >     > >> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:21 PM
> > > >     > >> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > >> Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >> 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 <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > --
> > > >     > --
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>]
> > > >     > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
> > > >     > >>> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto: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>
> > > >     > >>> <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > --
> > > >     > --
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > > >     > <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>
> > > >     <mailto: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>
> > > >     > >>> <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > --
> > > >     > --
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > > >     > <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>
> > > >     <mailto: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>
> > > >     > >>> <mailto: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>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>> <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>       From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>> <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> <mailto:java- <mailto:java->
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >> dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>> <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de <mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>>>       From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com
> > > >     <mailto:jake.mannix@gmail.com>
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >>> <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> <mailto:java- <mailto:java->
> > > >     > >>>>
> > > >     > >> dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto: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>
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>> --
> > > >     > >>> Robert Muir
> > > >     > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>> --
> > > >     > >>> Robert Muir
> > > >     > >>> rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>
> > > >     <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com <mailto:rcmuir@gmail.com>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >>>
> > > >     > >> --
> > > >     > >> - Mark
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > >     > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >     java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >     java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > >>
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > >     > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >     java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > >
> > > >     > >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     > --
> > > >     > - Mark
> > > >     >
> > > >     > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > >     > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > -
> > > >     To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >     For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >     <mailto:java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Muir
> rcmuir@gmail.com


Mime
View raw message