Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-7966:

Hi Robert,

the failing codec is the only one that is in backwards-codecs that fails. IMHO, 
this would not have any impact on real-life codec, because backwards codecs 
should not be used for indexing (only to read old indexes). Nevertheless, I 
just copied the StringHelper methods in the directory of this codec.

I did a full grep of StringHelper accross the backwards-codec stuff, no other 
occurrences. So I think we are safe to fix this single codec. What others did 
you see that may fail? In the core module it looks like all usages of 
StringHelper are indentical to master.


> build mr-jar and use some java 9 methods if available
> -----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-7966
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7966
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/other, general/build
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>            Assignee: Uwe Schindler
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: Java9
>             Fix For: master (8.0)
>         Attachments: LUCENE-7966-v2.patch, LUCENE-7966.patch, 
> LUCENE-7966.patch, LUCENE-7966.patch, LUCENE-7966.patch, LUCENE-7966.patch
> See background: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/238
> It would be nice to use some of the newer array methods and range checking 
> methods in java 9 for example, without waiting for lucene 10 or something. If 
> we build an MR-jar, we can start migrating our code to use java 9 methods 
> right now, it will use optimized methods from java 9 when thats available, 
> otherwise fall back to java 8 code.  
> This patch adds:
> {code}
> Objects.checkIndex(int,int)
> Objects.checkFromToIndex(int,int,int)
> Objects.checkFromIndexSize(int,int,int)
> Arrays.mismatch(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> Arrays.compareUnsigned(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> Arrays.equal(byte[],int,int,byte[],int,int)
> // did not add char/int/long/short/etc but of course its possible if needed
> {code}
> It sets these up in {{org.apache.lucene.future}} as 1-1 mappings to java 
> methods. This way, we can simply directly replace call sites with java 9 
> methods when java 9 is a minimum. Simple 1-1 mappings mean also that we only 
> have to worry about testing that our java 8 fallback methods work.
> I found that many of the current byte array methods today are willy-nilly and 
> very lenient for example, passing invalid offsets at times and relying on 
> compare methods not throwing exceptions, etc. I fixed all the instances in 
> core/codecs but have not looked at the problems with AnalyzingSuggester. Also 
> SimpleText still uses a silly method in ArrayUtil in similar crazy way, have 
> not removed that one yet.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to