CVS Lucene 2.0

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

CVS Lucene 2.0

Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
Is the sourcecode of Lucene 2.0 accessable? I have looked on the site,
but I couldn`t find a link.
 
And where are the archived mailinglists? They where of great value to
me.
 

Met vriendelijke groet,

Peter Veentjer
Anchor Men Interactive Solutions - duidelijk in zakelijke
internetoplossingen

Praediniussingel 41
9711 AE Groningen

T: 050-3115222
F: 050-5891696
E: [hidden email]
I : www.anchormen.nl <blocked::http://www.anchormen.nl/>

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Erik Hatcher

On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:
> Is the sourcecode of Lucene 2.0 accessable? I have looked on the site,
> but I couldn`t find a link.

There has been no binary release of it.  The codebase available from
Subversion checkout and easily built with Ant is available using:

        svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk

The current trunk will be (except for any changes that occur in the
next few days or weeks) Lucene 1.9 and Lucene 2.0 will be the same as
1.9 except with the deprecated methods removed.

> And where are the archived mailinglists? They where of great value to
> me.

You can view them here:

        http://www.mail-archive.com/java-user%40lucene.apache.org/

Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: CVS Lucene 2.0

George Aroush
Hi Erik,

I would like to see a source release of 1.9, a packaged source release as
ZIP/TAR.  Is that possible?

Regards,

-- George Aroush


-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 11:48 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: CVS Lucene 2.0


On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:
> Is the sourcecode of Lucene 2.0 accessable? I have looked on the site,
> but I couldn`t find a link.

There has been no binary release of it.  The codebase available from
Subversion checkout and easily built with Ant is available using:

        svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk

The current trunk will be (except for any changes that occur in the next few
days or weeks) Lucene 1.9 and Lucene 2.0 will be the same as
1.9 except with the deprecated methods removed.

> And where are the archived mailinglists? They where of great value to
> me.

You can view them here:

        http://www.mail-archive.com/java-user%40lucene.apache.org/

Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Doug Cutting
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
George Aroush wrote:
> I would like to see a source release of 1.9, a packaged source release as
> ZIP/TAR.  Is that possible?

There is no 1.9 release.  It is a *planned* release at this point.  When
a release is actually made, then you will be able to download it.

Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Erik Hatcher
FYI... I'm working on the build process to include the contrib
libraries at this moment.  Once that is done, we can move forward with
1.9 RC1 release whenever it is deemed ready.

        Erik

On Apr 25, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> George Aroush wrote:
>> I would like to see a source release of 1.9, a packaged source
>> release as
>> ZIP/TAR.  Is that possible?
>
> There is no 1.9 release.  It is a *planned* release at this point.  
> When a release is actually made, then you will be able to download it.
>
> Doug
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: CVS Lucene 2.0

Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
How can I send the modified sources? Do they have to be checked?

And 1.9 is going to be backwards compatible, but 2.0? Are only
deprecated methods removed or can the structure be subject of change
also?

Btw:
I would like to improve the MultiFieldQueryParser. The code is strange..
It looks like the MultiFieldQueryParser is extending the QueryParser,
but it isn`t (so the structure has to be improved). And the
MultiFieldQueryParser loses the ability to use 'and' searching. So foo
bar would be foo AND bar instead of foo OR bar.

Peter

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[hidden email]]
Verzonden: maandag 25 april 2005 17:48
Aan: [hidden email]
Onderwerp: Re: CVS Lucene 2.0


On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:
> Is the sourcecode of Lucene 2.0 accessable? I have looked on the site,

> but I couldn`t find a link.

There has been no binary release of it.  The codebase available from
Subversion checkout and easily built with Ant is available using:

        svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/trunk

The current trunk will be (except for any changes that occur in the next
few days or weeks) Lucene 1.9 and Lucene 2.0 will be the same as
1.9 except with the deprecated methods removed.

> And where are the archived mailinglists? They where of great value to
> me.

You can view them here:

        http://www.mail-archive.com/java-user%40lucene.apache.org/

Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 15:44
Aan: 'Daniel Naber'
Onderwerp: RE: CVS Lucene 2.0

 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Daniel Naber [mailto:[hidden email]]
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 15:36
Aan: Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
Onderwerp: Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 15:12, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:

> Btw:
> I would like to improve the MultiFieldQueryParser. The code is
strange..

This should be mostly fixed in the development version. Let me know
(i.e. post to the list) if something is still wrong. Note that there
might be some "strange" or "broken" methods around, but these should be
deprecated.

Ok.. I`ll post it (maybe this evening if I have time)..

I`m looking through the code at this moment and have a few remarks:

1) there are a lot of final methods that don`t need to be finalized (the
class is finallized, so the all the methods are finallized).

2) I have looked at the equals method of Term, and it could be improved
also:


Original Term.equals:

        public boolean equals(Object o) {
                if (o == null)
                        return false;
       
                Term other = (Term) o;
                return field == other.field && text.equals(other.text);
        }
       
New:

        public boolean equals(Object o) {
                if (o == this)
                        return true;

                if(!(o instanceof Term))
                        return false;
                       
                Term other = (Term) o;
                return field.equals(other.field) &&
text.equals(other.text);
        }

First if an object is checked with itself... No internal checking is
needed.
Two: if an object is tested with a class of a different type (or null)
the result is false.
Third: if the field values of refer to the same text but to different
object, the result should be the same.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Yonik Seeley
Term.field is interned, so equals() isn't needed.
-Yonik

On 4/26/05, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
>                 Term other = (Term) o;
>                 return field.equals(other.field) &&
> text.equals(other.text);
>         }
> Third: if the field values of refer to the same text but to different
> object, the result should be the same.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
How do you mean? If I create two terms, with the public constructor:

Term t1 = new Term(new String("foo"),"bar");
Term t2 = new Term(new String("foo"),"bar");

The result of t1.equals(t2) will be false..  




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[hidden email]]
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 16:04
Aan: [hidden email]
CC: Lucene Users List
Onderwerp: Re: FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Term.field is interned, so equals() isn't needed.
-Yonik

On 4/26/05, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
>                 Term other = (Term) o;
>                 return field.equals(other.field) &&
> text.equals(other.text);
>         }
> Third: if the field values of refer to the same text but to different
> object, the result should be the same.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men
I have checked the documentation if interned.. I didn`t knew it existed
:)  

So my previous post has no value anymore..

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[hidden email]]
Verzonden: dinsdag 26 april 2005 16:04
Aan: [hidden email]
CC: Lucene Users List
Onderwerp: Re: FW: CVS Lucene 2.0

Term.field is interned, so equals() isn't needed.
-Yonik

On 4/26/05, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
>                 Term other = (Term) o;
>                 return field.equals(other.field) &&
> text.equals(other.text);
>         }
> Third: if the field values of refer to the same text but to different
> object, the result should be the same.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Erik Hatcher
In reply to this post by Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men

On Apr 26, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Peter Veentjer - Anchor Men wrote:
> How can I send the modified sources? Do they have to be checked?

Submit patches in unified diff format to Lucene's issue tracking system
- see the links on the Lucene site.

> And 1.9 is going to be backwards compatible, but 2.0?

The goal is to have 1.9 backwards compatible with 1.4.3 API, but many
things will be deprecated.  2.0 will remove all those deprecated
methods.  If you can your app with 1.9 without deprecation warnings,
then you can upgrade cleanly to 2.0.  Functionally 1.9 and 2.0 will be
the same though.

>  Are only
> deprecated methods removed or can the structure be subject of change
> also?

I don't think at this point anything structural has been proposed as
different between 1.9 and 2.0.

> Btw:
> I would like to improve the MultiFieldQueryParser. The code is
> strange..
> It looks like the MultiFieldQueryParser is extending the QueryParser,
> but it isn`t (so the structure has to be improved). And the
> MultiFieldQueryParser loses the ability to use 'and' searching. So foo
> bar would be foo AND bar instead of foo OR bar.

Improvements always welcome!

        Erik


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Yonik Seeley
> I don't think at this point anything structural has been proposed as
> different between 1.9 and 2.0.

Are any of Paul Elschot's query and scorer changes being considered for 2.0?

-Yonik

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Doug Cutting
Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>I don't think at this point anything structural has been proposed as
>>different between 1.9 and 2.0.
>
> Are any of Paul Elschot's query and scorer changes being considered for 2.0?

1.9 and 2.0 will be what's in the SVN trunk.  Many of Paul's changes
have already been committed.  Are there particular changes that Paul has
contributed that have not yet been committed that you feel ought to be
before a release is made?

Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Yonik Seeley
I can't say whats actually ready, but I am very interested in sparse
filter representations.  I'm working on a project that needs to
dynamic categorization of search results, and this requires caching
thousands of filters.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32965
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921
It does currently require Java 1.4, so I guess it needs to wait for Lucene 2.0?

And I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly, but it looks like
BooleanScorer1 could be a replacement for both BooleanScorer and
BooleanScorer2.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33019

-Yonik

> 1.9 and 2.0 will be what's in the SVN trunk.  Many of Paul's changes
> have already been committed.  Are there particular changes that Paul has
> contributed that have not yet been committed that you feel ought to be
> before a release is made?
>
> Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: CVS Lucene 2.0

Paul Elschot
On Monday 02 May 2005 06:01, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I can't say whats actually ready, but I am very interested in sparse
> filter representations.  I'm working on a project that needs to
> dynamic categorization of search results, and this requires caching
> thousands of filters.

The need for many filters is what started me off on the boolean scorer
changes in the first place. Caching many filters implies filters must be
sparse (ie. take little memory). Sparse filters implies that they must
be used with iterator access (no more random access as on BitSet).
Iterator access implies all scoring should be done in
order of document numbers, which is not provided by the 1.4.3 BooleanScorer.

> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32965
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32921
> It does currently require Java 1.4, so I guess it needs to wait for Lucene
2.0?

It is the need to apply skipTo on the BitSet that introduces the need
for java 1.4 . In case one would only use SortedVIntList, (the sparse
filter), the java 1.4 dependency would not be there.

Btw. this also shows why both filters only work in RAM: they have
no underlying support for skipTo in their data structure. Java has
bolted this on in 1.4 over the BitSet (probably by a linear search
over the underlying array), and for the SkipFilter skipTo
is implemented by using the iterator, ie. a linear search.
 
> And I'm not sure if I'm reading it correctly, but it looks like
> BooleanScorer1 could be a replacement for both BooleanScorer and
> BooleanScorer2.
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33019

It's not stated there,  but BooleanScorer2 currently depends on
DisjunctionScorer in svn.
 
Regards,
Paul Elschot


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...