Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
89 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Otis Gospodnetic-2
It looks like I would have won a beer had anyone wagered me.

1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!

Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

Otis

----- Original Message ----
From: Otis Gospodnetic <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:48:15 AM
Subject: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5

Hello everyone,

If you have 15 seconds to spare, please let us (Lucene developers) know which version of Java you are using with Lucene: 1.4 or 1.5

All it takes is 1 click on one of the two choices:
  http://www.quimble.com/poll/view/2156

No cheating, please.  Thanks!
Otis




---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Simon Willnauer
go tiger go!

everybody not using 1.5 should visite java.sun.com downloading the 1.5 vm!!


On 6/16/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It looks like I would have won a beer had anyone wagered me.
>
> 1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
>
> Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

gdata already does ;)

>
> Otis
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Otis Gospodnetic <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:48:15 AM
> Subject: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> If you have 15 seconds to spare, please let us (Lucene developers) know which version of Java you are using with Lucene: 1.4 or 1.5
>
> All it takes is 1 click on one of the two choices:
>   http://www.quimble.com/poll/view/2156
>
> No cheating, please.  Thanks!
> Otis
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
>
>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Chris Hostetter-3
In reply to this post by Otis Gospodnetic-2

: 1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
:
: Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

The poll has only been up for 17 hours, and it was allready after 5PM on
a Friday in some parts of the world when you posted the poll ... maybe
we should give the folks in Kamchatka until monday morning to check their
email and vote.




: ----- Original Message ----
: From: Otis Gospodnetic <[hidden email]>
: To: [hidden email]
: Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:48:15 AM
: Subject: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5
:
: Hello everyone,
:
: If you have 15 seconds to spare, please let us (Lucene developers) know which version of Java you are using with Lucene: 1.4 or 1.5
:
: All it takes is 1 click on one of the two choices:
:   http://www.quimble.com/poll/view/2156
:
: No cheating, please.  Thanks!
: Otis
:
:
:
:
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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]
:



-Hoss


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

mark harwood
In reply to this post by Simon Willnauer
 >1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
 >Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

This isn't simply about which JVM gets used the most wins.
This is about "how many Lucene users will we inconvenience or lose by
moving to 1.5?"

Right now the survey sample tells me roughly a third which doesn't seem
like a good thing. Maybe the question is more usefully "who can't/won't
move to 1.5 in the immediate future?"

I believe we shouldn't select the minimum platform based on the coding
convenience it may offer us which seems to be the major objective behind
1.5 adoption. When developing a library deployed in many
applications/environments over which you have no control and where
careful consideration of runtime performance not coding
convenience/speed of development is the primary concern my preference
would be to choose 1.4.

Not all deployment environments can be upgraded easily. Take my current
application at work. It's applet-based and rolled out to hundreds of
corporate desktops which are stuck on 1.4 (this won't change anytime
soon). Lucene isn't on the client but all client and server code in the
app has been written in 1.4 to avoid any issues of any 1.5 code leaking
onto the 1.4 client. All of the many 3rd party libraries in use (Spring,
database drivers  etc) are 1.4 compatible in their latest versions. I'd
like to stick with the latest Lucene codebase but mandating 1.5 for
Lucene would introduce a code management headache to this app with the
mixed JVMs

Unless there are *really* good runtime benefits that are solely based on
1.5 libraries or source code I would prefer to see Lucene stick with 1.4
as a base rather than limit Lucene's deployment options simply because
of  code-time benefits the new 1.5 syntax offers.
I see that the Spring framework recognise this dilemma and still seek to
support as far back as 1.3 (see http://www.springframework.org/node/220).

Simon said "everyone should download 1.5". It's nice to think you can
accelerate the global adoption of 1.5 by changing projects like Lucene
but the reality is corporates do not change platforms overnight because
of such a change.

That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments
which are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes
coding easier".

Cheers,
Mark



               
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Robert Engels
I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...

If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick with version 1.9 (or
2.0 in this case).

If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.

Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior versions. At some point though
you need to be able to move forward since developers may not be trained in
the "legacy" environment.

-----Original Message-----
From: markharw00d [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

 >1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
 >Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

This isn't simply about which JVM gets used the most wins.
This is about "how many Lucene users will we inconvenience or lose by moving
to 1.5?"

Right now the survey sample tells me roughly a third which doesn't seem like
a good thing. Maybe the question is more usefully "who can't/won't move to
1.5 in the immediate future?"

I believe we shouldn't select the minimum platform based on the coding
convenience it may offer us which seems to be the major objective behind
1.5 adoption. When developing a library deployed in many
applications/environments over which you have no control and where careful
consideration of runtime performance not coding convenience/speed of
development is the primary concern my preference would be to choose 1.4.

Not all deployment environments can be upgraded easily. Take my current
application at work. It's applet-based and rolled out to hundreds of
corporate desktops which are stuck on 1.4 (this won't change anytime soon).
Lucene isn't on the client but all client and server code in the app has
been written in 1.4 to avoid any issues of any 1.5 code leaking onto the 1.4
client. All of the many 3rd party libraries in use (Spring, database drivers
etc) are 1.4 compatible in their latest versions. I'd like to stick with the
latest Lucene codebase but mandating 1.5 for Lucene would introduce a code
management headache to this app with the mixed JVMs

Unless there are *really* good runtime benefits that are solely based on
1.5 libraries or source code I would prefer to see Lucene stick with 1.4 as
a base rather than limit Lucene's deployment options simply because of
code-time benefits the new 1.5 syntax offers.
I see that the Spring framework recognise this dilemma and still seek to
support as far back as 1.3 (see http://www.springframework.org/node/220).

Simon said "everyone should download 1.5". It's nice to think you can
accelerate the global adoption of 1.5 by changing projects like Lucene but
the reality is corporates do not change platforms overnight because of such
a change.

That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments which
are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes coding easier".

Cheers,
Mark



               
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Chuck Williams-2
The main arguments have never been about coding simplicity.  I think the
arguments presented thus far boil down to this:

   1. (Pro 1.5) All the committers, and to a lesser extent the patch
      contributors, whose use 1.5 regularly in their standard
      environments and will make more contributions to Lucene if their
      contributions are natural in this environment and are/or are
      by-products of other work they are doing.
   2. (Con 1.5) All the Lucene community members who cannot yet move to
      1.5 for whatever reason.

I'm in camp 1, but respect the people in camp 2.  At some point Lucene
moves to 1.5.  The question is where is the tipping point?  That's why I
think the pmc/committers just have to make a decision and the rest of us
live with it.

Chuck


Robert Engels wrote on 06/16/2006 06:15 PM:

> I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
>
> If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick with version 1.9 (or
> 2.0 in this case).
>
> If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
>
> Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior versions. At some point though
> you need to be able to move forward since developers may not be trained in
> the "legacy" environment.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: markharw00d [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:34 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
>
>  >1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
>  >Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?
>
> This isn't simply about which JVM gets used the most wins.
> This is about "how many Lucene users will we inconvenience or lose by moving
> to 1.5?"
>
> Right now the survey sample tells me roughly a third which doesn't seem like
> a good thing. Maybe the question is more usefully "who can't/won't move to
> 1.5 in the immediate future?"
>
> I believe we shouldn't select the minimum platform based on the coding
> convenience it may offer us which seems to be the major objective behind
> 1.5 adoption. When developing a library deployed in many
> applications/environments over which you have no control and where careful
> consideration of runtime performance not coding convenience/speed of
> development is the primary concern my preference would be to choose 1.4.
>
> Not all deployment environments can be upgraded easily. Take my current
> application at work. It's applet-based and rolled out to hundreds of
> corporate desktops which are stuck on 1.4 (this won't change anytime soon).
> Lucene isn't on the client but all client and server code in the app has
> been written in 1.4 to avoid any issues of any 1.5 code leaking onto the 1.4
> client. All of the many 3rd party libraries in use (Spring, database drivers
> etc) are 1.4 compatible in their latest versions. I'd like to stick with the
> latest Lucene codebase but mandating 1.5 for Lucene would introduce a code
> management headache to this app with the mixed JVMs
>
> Unless there are *really* good runtime benefits that are solely based on
> 1.5 libraries or source code I would prefer to see Lucene stick with 1.4 as
> a base rather than limit Lucene's deployment options simply because of
> code-time benefits the new 1.5 syntax offers.
> I see that the Spring framework recognise this dilemma and still seek to
> support as far back as 1.3 (see http://www.springframework.org/node/220).
>
> Simon said "everyone should download 1.5". It's nice to think you can
> accelerate the global adoption of 1.5 by changing projects like Lucene but
> the reality is corporates do not change platforms overnight because of such
> a change.
>
> That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments which
> are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes coding easier".
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
> your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
>
>  

--
*Chuck Williams*
Manawiz
Principal
V: (808)885-8688
C: (415)846-9018
[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
Skype: manawiz
AIM: hawimanawiz
Yahoo: jcwxx

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Paul Elschot
In reply to this post by mark harwood
On Saturday 17 June 2006 01:33, markharw00d wrote:
>
> That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments
> which are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes
> coding easier".

As for coding convenience from 1.4: last time I had a look there was
not a single assert statement in the core code, so I don't think coding
convenience is a good argument to move to 1.5 already now.

Regards,
Paul Elschot

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Vic Bancroft-2
Until there is a free java 5 alternative, it would be nice to have a
clean compile in 1.4.  We might also consider waiting until gcj does the
1.5 move, since some of us are loving the native binaries, particularly
on x86_64.

How else can you index billions of documents (aside from expensive big
blue boxes) . . .

more,
l8r,
v

--
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."
 -- William Gibson, quoted by Whitfield Diffie


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Robert Engels
Do you have any hard numbers to support this? The last time I checked, gcj
had minimal improvement over JVM 1.5.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Bancroft [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Until there is a free java 5 alternative, it would be nice to have a clean
compile in 1.4.  We might also consider waiting until gcj does the
1.5 move, since some of us are loving the native binaries, particularly on
x86_64.

How else can you index billions of documents (aside from expensive big blue
boxes) . . .

more,
l8r,
v

--
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."
 -- William Gibson, quoted by Whitfield Diffie


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Otis Gospodnetic-2
In reply to this post by mark harwood
Poor horse... :(
My aggregate thoughts about this (can't move to 1.5 because <something>) is:
- You don't have to.
- Just keep using 2.0.*.
- 2.0.* will be viable until well in 2007, I bet.

There will _always_ be unhappy people.  Java 1.4 folks are clearly a minority (survey).

Otis

----- Original Message ----
From: markharw00d <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:33:43 PM
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

 >1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
 >Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?

This isn't simply about which JVM gets used the most wins.
This is about "how many Lucene users will we inconvenience or lose by
moving to 1.5?"

Right now the survey sample tells me roughly a third which doesn't seem
like a good thing. Maybe the question is more usefully "who can't/won't
move to 1.5 in the immediate future?"

I believe we shouldn't select the minimum platform based on the coding
convenience it may offer us which seems to be the major objective behind
1.5 adoption. When developing a library deployed in many
applications/environments over which you have no control and where
careful consideration of runtime performance not coding
convenience/speed of development is the primary concern my preference
would be to choose 1.4.

Not all deployment environments can be upgraded easily. Take my current
application at work. It's applet-based and rolled out to hundreds of
corporate desktops which are stuck on 1.4 (this won't change anytime
soon). Lucene isn't on the client but all client and server code in the
app has been written in 1.4 to avoid any issues of any 1.5 code leaking
onto the 1.4 client. All of the many 3rd party libraries in use (Spring,
database drivers  etc) are 1.4 compatible in their latest versions. I'd
like to stick with the latest Lucene codebase but mandating 1.5 for
Lucene would introduce a code management headache to this app with the
mixed JVMs

Unless there are *really* good runtime benefits that are solely based on
1.5 libraries or source code I would prefer to see Lucene stick with 1.4
as a base rather than limit Lucene's deployment options simply because
of  code-time benefits the new 1.5 syntax offers.
I see that the Spring framework recognise this dilemma and still seek to
support as far back as 1.3 (see http://www.springframework.org/node/220).

Simon said "everyone should download 1.5". It's nice to think you can
accelerate the global adoption of 1.5 by changing projects like Lucene
but the reality is corporates do not change platforms overnight because
of such a change.

That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments
which are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes
coding easier".

Cheers,
Mark



       
___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

saturnism
In reply to this post by Paul Elschot
I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
code or not.  We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways.  But
we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy.  I believe
the transition from 1.4 to 1.5  is not an over night thing.

Secondly can we specifically find places where some people _will_
contribute code immediately if it's 1.5 is accepted?

Like what I have suggested before, why not have contribution modules
that act as a transition into 1.5 code?  Much like what other
framework has a "tiger" module.  This module may have say, a 1.5
compatible layer on top of 1.4 core, or other components of lucene
that was made to be extensible, e.g. 1.5 version of QueryParser,
Directory, etc.

ray,

On 6/17/06, Paul Elschot <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Saturday 17 June 2006 01:33, markharw00d wrote:
> >
> > That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments
> > which are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes
> > coding easier".
>
> As for coding convenience from 1.4: last time I had a look there was
> not a single assert statement in the core code, so I don't think coding
> convenience is a good argument to move to 1.5 already now.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Elschot
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Tatu Saloranta
In reply to this post by Robert Engels
--- Robert Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
>
> If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick
> with version 1.9 (or
> 2.0 in this case).
>
> If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
>
> Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior
> versions. At some point though
> you need to be able to move forward since developers
> may not be trained in
> the "legacy" environment.

While this is true, I thinks that comparisons of
Lucene to, say, MS-DOS are at best a knee-jerk
comments, or otherwise imply some lack of perspective
and common sense (probably former though).
Lucene has moved away from JDK 1.1 support, and at
this point 1.4 is probably the baseline. This has
happened over time, as platform has advanced. And it's
bit curious as to what the current mad rush regarding
migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
sugar, only the concurrency package seems like a
tempting immediate reason?

Now, I think Doug had best points regarding inertia
that low-level libraries and components should
consider. Apps are first to move to newest versions;
top-level libraries then, and finally fundamental
components and engines. I would think Lucene falls
into this category: it has few dependencies of its
own, but has tons of downstream dependencies.

I don't know if this has suggested yet, but how about
switching to 1.5, when Sun declares 1.6 to be the
official stable JDK (ie. when it comes out of its beta
status)?

Anyway, it obviously comes down to the active
committers to decide the time/version for the cut-off.
But I hope it can be a practical decision made with
cool minds.

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Robert Engels
It was a joke.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

--- Robert Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
>
> If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick with version 1.9
> (or 2.0 in this case).
>
> If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
>
> Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior versions. At some point
> though you need to be able to move forward since developers may not be
> trained in the "legacy" environment.

While this is true, I thinks that comparisons of Lucene to, say, MS-DOS are
at best a knee-jerk comments, or otherwise imply some lack of perspective
and common sense (probably former though).
Lucene has moved away from JDK 1.1 support, and at this point 1.4 is
probably the baseline. This has happened over time, as platform has
advanced. And it's bit curious as to what the current mad rush regarding
migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic sugar, only the
concurrency package seems like a tempting immediate reason?

Now, I think Doug had best points regarding inertia that low-level libraries
and components should consider. Apps are first to move to newest versions;
top-level libraries then, and finally fundamental components and engines. I
would think Lucene falls into this category: it has few dependencies of its
own, but has tons of downstream dependencies.

I don't know if this has suggested yet, but how about switching to 1.5, when
Sun declares 1.6 to be the official stable JDK (ie. when it comes out of its
beta status)?

Anyway, it obviously comes down to the active committers to decide the
time/version for the cut-off.
But I hope it can be a practical decision made with cool minds.

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Chuck Williams-2
In reply to this post by saturnism

Ray Tsang wrote on 06/17/2006 06:29 AM:
> I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
> code or not.  We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways.  But
> we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy.  I believe
> the transition from 1.4 to 1.5  is not an over night thing.

I disagree.  1.5 was specifically designed to make transition easy,
including the inclusion of "non-features" that ensure smooth
interoperability (e.g., raw types and no runtime presence whatsoever of
generics -- quite different from how it was done in .Net 2.0 for example).

>
> Secondly can we specifically find places where some people _will_
> contribute code immediately if it's 1.5 is accepted?

I already have.  That's what started this second round of debate.

>
> Like what I have suggested before, why not have contribution modules
> that act as a transition into 1.5 code?  Much like what other
> framework has a "tiger" module.  This module may have say, a 1.5
> compatible layer on top of 1.4 core, or other components of lucene
> that was made to be extensible, e.g. 1.5 version of QueryParser,
> Directory, etc.

I think this would make it unnecessarily complex.

Chuck


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Chuck Williams-2
In reply to this post by Tatu Saloranta

Tatu Saloranta wrote on 06/17/2006 06:54 AM:
> And it's
> bit curious as to what the current mad rush regarding
> migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
> sugar, only the concurrency package seems like a
> tempting immediate reason?
>  

The only people who keep bringing up these non-arguments are those on
the con side.  You should read the arguments on the pro side -- they are
not these.

> I hope it can be a practical decision made with
> cool minds.
>  

Agreed.  I think a key part of this is to listen to what the other side
is saying.

This all boils down to people and the environments they use.  People
using 1.4 want the latest and greatest Lucene and don't understand why
it's important to use 1.5 anyway.  People using 1.5 are writing 1.5 code
everyday and want to be able to make contributions to Lucene without
backporting and retesting.  Also, they don't want to consciously write
code that might be a Lucene contribution in 1.4 because a) the cognitive
shift back to 1.4 is not easy once you are fully indoctrinated into 1.5
(primarily generics), and b) 1.4 code is not type-safe in the sense that
1.5 code is.

So, do 1.4 people live with Lucene 2.0.x until they move to 1.5, or do
1.5 people get limited or cut out from making contributions.  Neither
option is appealing, especially to those negative affected.

Chuck


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

eks dev
Chuck, you nailed it!

This reverse view is really what brings clarity, at least to me. It boils down to  the question "Who is loosing what?"

Move to 1.5: some people will not have an oportunity to use new cool features that will come in 2.x versions. So they know the feeling, they cannot use cool new features of java 1.5 as well.

Stay by 1.4: Lucene will progress slower than in other case, so people that are allready using 1.5 will not benefit from Lucene progress as fast.

As far as I can tell, from pure selfish perspective, moving to 1.5 would be preffered option. Trying to be objective here, gut feeling is to say also move  to 1.5  as Lucene will move forward faster, which kind of brings benefits to both sides as there is tomorrow.

Pople that created this great thing called Lucene should decide. I am sure whichever decision is made, it will not be premature or without considering the needs of the other side.

cheers


----- Original Message ----
From: Chuck Williams <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, 17 June, 2006 9:46:23 PM
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)


Tatu Saloranta wrote on 06/17/2006 06:54 AM:
> And it's
> bit curious as to what the current mad rush regarding
> migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
> sugar, only the concurrency package seems like a
> tempting immediate reason?
>  

The only people who keep bringing up these non-arguments are those on
the con side.  You should read the arguments on the pro side -- they are
not these.

> I hope it can be a practical decision made with
> cool minds.
>  

Agreed.  I think a key part of this is to listen to what the other side
is saying.

This all boils down to people and the environments they use.  People
using 1.4 want the latest and greatest Lucene and don't understand why
it's important to use 1.5 anyway.  People using 1.5 are writing 1.5 code
everyday and want to be able to make contributions to Lucene without
backporting and retesting.  Also, they don't want to consciously write
code that might be a Lucene contribution in 1.4 because a) the cognitive
shift back to 1.4 is not easy once you are fully indoctrinated into 1.5
(primarily generics), and b) 1.4 code is not type-safe in the sense that
1.5 code is.

So, do 1.4 people live with Lucene 2.0.x until they move to 1.5, or do
1.5 people get limited or cut out from making contributions.  Neither
option is appealing, especially to those negative affected.

Chuck


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Tatu Saloranta
In reply to this post by Robert Engels
--- Robert Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It was a joke.

;-)

Yes, I did realize that. But I have seen earlier
references, with more serious tone... and it did seem
like some people actually believed 1.4 compatibility
was a "back to stone age" requirement.

Anyway, lots of good points being presented and all:
and in the end I'm lucky enough that none of my
current (or immediate work) will be on pre-1.5
platform.

-+ Tatu +-

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:[hidden email]]
>
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:55 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java
> 1.4 vs. 1.5)
>
> --- Robert Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
> >
> > If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you
> stick with version 1.9
> > (or 2.0 in this case).
> >
> > If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
> >
> > Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior
> versions. At some point
> > though you need to be able to move forward since
> developers may not be
> > trained in the "legacy" environment.
>
> While this is true, I thinks that comparisons of
> Lucene to, say, MS-DOS are
> at best a knee-jerk comments, or otherwise imply
> some lack of perspective
> and common sense (probably former though).
> Lucene has moved away from JDK 1.1 support, and at
> this point 1.4 is
> probably the baseline. This has happened over time,
> as platform has
> advanced. And it's bit curious as to what the
> current mad rush regarding
> migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
> sugar, only the
> concurrency package seems like a tempting immediate
> reason?
>
> Now, I think Doug had best points regarding inertia
> that low-level libraries
> and components should consider. Apps are first to
> move to newest versions;
> top-level libraries then, and finally fundamental
> components and engines. I
> would think Lucene falls into this category: it has
> few dependencies of its
> own, but has tons of downstream dependencies.
>
> I don't know if this has suggested yet, but how
> about switching to 1.5, when
> Sun declares 1.6 to be the official stable JDK (ie.
> when it comes out of its
> beta status)?
>
> Anyway, it obviously comes down to the active
> committers to decide the
> time/version for the cut-off.
> But I hope it can be a practical decision made with
> cool minds.
>
> -+ Tatu +-
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Vic Bancroft-2
In reply to this post by Robert Engels
Robert Engels wrote:

>Do you have any hard numbers to support this? The last time I checked, gcj
>had minimal improvement over JVM 1.5.
>  
>
In terms of speed, there is not much difference between native code and
classes (see sample timings).  However, the pragmatic availability of
java 5 environment for even somewhat _exotic_ platforms is sadly
limited.  My current environment is linux on a dual core x86_64.

One can only ride a jrocket into 1.5 land and still address 64 bits of
goodness !

more,
l8r,
v

BTW, given a native compile and link,

    [bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ ldd  build/indexFiles
            libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x0000003f00400000)
            libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0000003efec00000)
            libgcj.so.7 => /usr/lib64/libgcj.so.7 (0x00002aaaaaac2000)
            libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x0000003ef9100000)
            libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x0000003efa500000)
            libz.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libz.so.1 (0x0000003ef9500000)
            libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003ef9300000)
            libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003ef8e00000)
            /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003ef8c00000)

The native indexing,

[bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ time build/indexFiles . 2>&1 > /dev/null

real    0m22.932s
user    0m16.581s
sys     0m6.224s

The virtual machine indexing,

[bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ time java -d64 -Xmx8192m -cp build/lucene-demos-2.0-rc1-dev.jar:build/lucene-core-2.0-rc1-dev.jar org.apache.lucene.demo.IndexFiles . 2>&1 > /dev/null
real    0m23.224s
user    0m33.238s
sys     0m5.184s
 

Side note, the jrocket seems to use both processors just about 1/3 of
the way through, where as the gcj doesn't . . .

--
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."
 -- William Gibson, quoted by Whitfield Diffie


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Robert Engels
Are you sure about the JVM numbers? I would think that user + sys must
always be < real (unless maybe the multiprocessor affects this - i.e. sums
the processor time used on each).

-----Original Message-----
From: Vic Bancroft [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:55 AM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Robert Engels wrote:

>Do you have any hard numbers to support this? The last time I checked,
>gcj had minimal improvement over JVM 1.5.
>  
>
In terms of speed, there is not much difference between native code and
classes (see sample timings).  However, the pragmatic availability of java 5
environment for even somewhat _exotic_ platforms is sadly limited.  My
current environment is linux on a dual core x86_64.

One can only ride a jrocket into 1.5 land and still address 64 bits of
goodness !

more,
l8r,
v

BTW, given a native compile and link,

    [bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ ldd  build/indexFiles
            libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 (0x0000003f00400000)
            libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0000003efec00000)
            libgcj.so.7 => /usr/lib64/libgcj.so.7 (0x00002aaaaaac2000)
            libm.so.6 => /lib64/libm.so.6 (0x0000003ef9100000)
            libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x0000003efa500000)
            libz.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libz.so.1 (0x0000003ef9500000)
            libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2 (0x0000003ef9300000)
            libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x0000003ef8e00000)
            /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x0000003ef8c00000)

The native indexing,

[bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ time build/indexFiles . 2>&1 > /dev/null

real    0m22.932s
user    0m16.581s
sys     0m6.224s

The virtual machine indexing,

[bancroft@orca lucene-415145]$ time java -d64 -Xmx8192m -cp
build/lucene-demos-2.0-rc1-dev.jar:build/lucene-core-2.0-rc1-dev.jar
org.apache.lucene.demo.IndexFiles . 2>&1 > /dev/null
real    0m23.224s
user    0m33.238s
sys     0m5.184s
 

Side note, the jrocket seems to use both processors just about 1/3 of the
way through, where as the gcj doesn't . . .

--
"The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet."
 -- William Gibson, quoted by Whitfield Diffie


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|

RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)

Bhoomi Mehta

Any specific reason why PorterStemmer class in org.apache.lucene.analysis is
not made public?

Thank you,
Best Regards,

Bhoomi Mehta
Sr. Project Leader
I- Link Infosoft (G) Pvt . Ltd.
Ahmedabad
Email: [hidden email]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
12345