Thank you for the thorough explanation! My idea in questioning this was purely in trying to understand why it is the way it is. There is not any problem as far as I know -- it just seemed strange to me that we are compiling with jdk24 yet we have a special folder for jdk24-only features (my interpretation). There is a lot going on here I didn't appreciate (-release, module export restrictions, etc). Thanks for entertaining other possible solutions: just to repeat, I'm not advocating to change anything, just curious!
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 6:42 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > in theory we can't (see above), because there are some problems with > java compiler as the main sources are compiled with "-release 24", but > the incubator is not part of official API and this gets problematic (as > unstable). To ensure that our main classes get all checks by the > compiler and are compatible with the release version, we have to exclude > the incubator classes. In addition, if we want to compile that with our > current module infrastructure, we would need to add > "jdk.incubator.vector" module part of our module-descriptor. But as it > is an optional feature (needs explicit enablement), we can't do this. As > alternative the whole setup could also be a separate JAR file and > separate gradle module in lucene "lucene-core-vector24.jar" with an SPI, > but for convenience we merge the classes into the main jar, so user does > not need a separate maven dependency to add and get incubator > vectorization. So we have a separate sourceset instead of a separate > Gradle module. > > Because of all this the sourceset *is* needed, also with Java 24. In > future, when the incubator API gets new features or propagated to > "preview" we need additional sourceset anyways and have to replicate all > classes and therefor I don't want to even try to get rid of the current > setup. The current state is easier to maintain and also have the bonus > of better separation (regarding making incubator classes accidentally > part of our public API). All java24 classes are excluded form javadocs > and are not exported by module definition. Ass all of them containing > code are package private and you can only get an instance of the > VectorizationProvider from a stack-trace inspecting mechanism based on > "SharedSecrets" concept, we have a good separation. > > Just to question: What was you original intention to merge the classes > to main sourceset? To me IDEs are perfectly fine with the current state. > > Just some additional info: From what I figured out, cherry-picking to > stable branch is possible, although the sourceset and directories have > different names, becazuse git is intelligent enough to recognize this > like a file rename. > > Uwe > > Am 08.07.2025 um 22:00 schrieb Michael Sokolov: > > I think I see - in theory we could merge into the "regular" source, > > aside from the extra hiding, but we might have to recreate this as > > soon as we start messing around with JDK25. I guess as long as we > > track JDK-specific features (incubation, preview, etc), then we need > > this. > > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:17 AM Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> This is because the compilation/processing is different. The files are > >> compiled with a Java 24 API extract (apijar file) of the Incubator modules > >> and are NOT compiled against the current JDK. In addition it allows us to > >> make sure no classes from there appear in public APIs or can be referenced > >> from there. This is done because compilation with "-release" does not work > >> with a later JDK like 25 (as it is not part of backwards compatibility) > >> and the APIs may suddenly change in later Java versions. Therefore the > >> compilation is done using a stub: > >> https://github.com/apache/lucene/tree/main/lucene/core/src/generated/jdk > >> > >> In addition when Panama Vector enters Preview mode (should happen > >> hopefully soon after Java 25) we need a separate sourceset anyways. > >> > >> Uwe > >> > >> Am 08.07.2025 um 16:58 schrieb Michael Sokolov: > >> > >> I'm curious why we have lucene/core/src/java24 directory/module on main > >> branch instead of moving these classes to lucene/core/src/java, now that > >> JDK24 is mandatory. > >> > >> -- > >> Uwe Schindler > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >> https://www.thetaphi.de > >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > -- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > https://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
