Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73912 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2006 01:54:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2006 01:54:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 27350 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2006 01:54:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 27323 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2006 01:54:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 27312 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2006 01:54:49 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:54:49 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [169.229.70.167] (HELO rescomp.berkeley.edu) (169.229.70.167) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:54:47 -0800 Received: by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix, from userid 1007) id 70EE05B774; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:54:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6211D7F403 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:54:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:54:27 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Hostetter To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Lucene 1.9.1 and timeToString() apparent incompatibility with 1.4.3 In-Reply-To: <6a3c67ff0603071427s3c8ea91eg3a30d29149cde4bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <6a3c67ff0603071427s3c8ea91eg3a30d29149cde4bd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N : timeToString() and stringToTime() classes are used. Using an index created : with 1.4.3 and searched with 1.9.1 I now receive the following errors: As the deprecation comment in DateField says... If you build a new index, use DateTools instead. For existing indices you can continue using this class, as it will not be removed in the near future despite being deprecated. ...DateTools is not backwards with DateField, which is why that comment tries to make it clear that you shouldn't use DateField for new indexes, but you can continue using it for old ones without fear. : I assume there is a better way to do this than the above as this : incompatibility is not documented. : I know I can always revert to the old code in order to avoid re-creating the : index, but I would prefer to find a solution that uses the latest classes : AND avoids re-creating the index, if possible. : thanks for any help, if you don't wnat to rebuild your index, then just keep using the DateField class and everything will be fine. -Hoss --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org