On 5/30/06, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are actually using 1.5 too. My concern is that when someone makes
changes to the core, they have to make sure they didn't break the code,
this includes all of the contrib modules, which _could_ mean that I need
more than just 1.4 and 1.5 to build and test the core and contrib
areas. I just think it could get out of hand. The system requirements
document could get too complicated.
I am all for moving to 1.5; I am not in favor of letting the contrib
package range freely over whatever JVM version is available.
This is true and I do agree with you. So let's dicuss about the GData
Server because development just started and at the moment it would be
possible to switch to 1.5 eg. 1.4.
The client api is written whit 1.5 features and it would be more
consistent to develop the serverside 1.5 dependent aswell.
contrib projects developed with >=1.5 should definitly be discussed
on the mailing list instead of letting them use whatever JVM version
is available.
simon
Simon Willnauer wrote:
> I use 1.5 JVM since 1.5 years building 1.4 and 1.5 projects which
> works perfect. But if you are afraid of the management you could still
> modify your local build process to set JAVA_HOME variables during
> build.
> Multiple JVM on a system should not be a problem AFAIK.
> Won't that solve the problem?!
>
> Simon
>
> On 5/30/06, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Would this mean that people checking out Lucene source (especially the
>> core) could possibly need 2 or more JDKs on their machines in order to
>> do a build? I know it is would be automated through the build scripts,
>> but it seems like _it could_ degenerate into a management nightmare.
>> What if people require specific JVM minor releases do to JVM bug fixes
>> or if they require 1.6?
>>
>> Chris Hostetter wrote:
>> > : important new facilities. Repeating my earlier question, why
>> should a
>> > : platform that is 2 years behind for java expect to be at the
>> latest and
>> > : greatest level for lucene? I'd propose 2.0 (+ branched patches)
>> be the
>> > : 1.4 release distribution, with 2.1 free to move up to 1.5.
>> >
>> > I would ammend that proposal slightly...
>> >
>> > 1a) Lucene Core 2.0.* releases garuntee java1.4 compatibility
>> > 1b) Lucene Contrib modules in 2.0.* releases are free to require
>> any java
>> > version they choose.
>> >
>> > 2a) Lucene Core 2.1.* release garuntee java1.5 compatibility.
>> > 2b) Lucene Contrib modules in 2.1.* releases are free to require
>> any java
>> > version they choose.
>> >
>> > -Hoss
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> Sr. Software Engineer
>> Center for Natural Language Processing
>> Syracuse University
>> School of Information Studies
>> 335 Hinds Hall
>> Syracuse, NY 13244
>>
>> http://www.cnlp.org
>> Voice: 315-443-5484
>> Fax: 315-443-6886
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Grant Ingersoll
Sr. Software Engineer
Center for Natural Language Processing
Syracuse University
School of Information Studies
335 Hinds Hall
Syracuse, NY 13244
http://www.cnlp.org
Voice: 315-443-5484
Fax: 315-443-6886
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
