[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7966?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16356806#comment-16356806
 ] 

Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-7966:
---------------------------------------

I ran an extensive beasting on the backwards-codecs: No problems anymore. 
Previously it failed every second time, especially if you used 
tests.multiplier=3 or larger - than it failed always.

> 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-7966-7x-backwards.patch, 
> LUCENE-7966-7x-backwards.patch, 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
(v7.6.3#76005)

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

Reply via email to