I'll just send it to java-user in a bit in order to get the answers only from Lucene users (and not peeps just passing by lucene.apache.org).
Otis ----- Original Message ---- From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:53:57 AM Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion to ParallelReader +1 Do you want to post it on the user list? It might also be good to put it up on the main website. Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > Grant: how to poll users? How about this: > http://www.quimble.com/poll/view/2156 ? If you think that's ok, we can send > that to java-user tomorrow and see. Hey, how about some bets? I'll put a > $10 for a beer on 1.5. > > Wow, $10 for a beer? That must be some pretty good beer. Either that or you live in New York City and that is a cheap beer! Anyway, I am betting it is 1.5 as well. Maybe we can get together at ApacheCon or something for one... > Otis > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:01:30 PM > Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter > companion to ParallelReader > > > >> In addition to performance, productivity and functionality benefits, my >> main argument for 1.5 is that it is used by the vast majority of lucene >> community members. >> > > I am not so sure about this. Perhaps we should take a poll on the user > list? Not even sure how that would be managed or counted, but... > > >> Everything I write is in 1.5 and I don't have time >> to backport. I have a significant body of code from which to extract >> and contribute patches that others would likely find useful. How many >> others are in a similar position? >> >> > I definitely would prefer to make future contributions in 1.5 (even the > patch we just contributed (issue 545) could have been better given 1.5, > but it is fine with 1.4 as well). I tend to think if people don't want > the new functionality or if it breaks their app. then they need not > upgrade, or they can contribute patches against the branches for prior > releases and we can support that as needed. To me, this is what major > releases are about. I know that when a major release comes out that I > should expect library changes that may break my code. If I don't want > that pain, then I don't upgrade. > >> On the side, not leaving valued community members behind is important. >> >> I think the pmc / committers just need to make a decision which will >> impact one group or the other. >> >> Chuck >> >> >> Grant Ingersoll wrote on 06/13/2006 03:35 AM: >> >> >>> Well, we have our first Java 1.5 patch... Now that we have had a week >>> or two to digest the comments, do we want to reopen the discussion? >>> >>> Chuck Williams (JIRA) wrote: >>> >>> >>>> [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-600?page=all ] >>>> >>>> Chuck Williams updated LUCENE-600: >>>> ---------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Attachment: ParallelWriter.patch >>>> >>>> Patch to create and integrate ParallelWriter, Writable and >>>> TestParallelWriter -- also modifies build to use java 1.5. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> ParallelWriter companion to ParallelReader >>>>> ------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Key: LUCENE-600 >>>>> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-600 >>>>> Project: Lucene - Java >>>>> Type: Improvement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Components: Index >>>>> Versions: 2.1 >>>>> Reporter: Chuck Williams >>>>> Attachments: ParallelWriter.patch >>>>> >>>>> A new class ParallelWriter is provided that serves as a companion to >>>>> ParallelReader. ParallelWriter meets all of the doc-id >>>>> synchronization requirements of ParallelReader, subject to: >>>>> 1. ParallelWriter.addDocument() is synchronized, which might >>>>> have an adverse effect on performance. The writes to the >>>>> sub-indexes are, however, done in parallel. >>>>> 2. The application must ensure that the ParallelReader is never >>>>> reopened inside ParallelWriter.addDocument(), else it might find the >>>>> sub-indexes out of sync. >>>>> 3. The application must deal with recovery from >>>>> ParallelWriter.addDocument() exceptions. Recovery must restore the >>>>> synchronization of doc-ids, e.g. by deleting any trailing >>>>> document(s) in one sub-index that were not successfully added to all >>>>> sub-indexes, and then optimizing all sub-indexes. >>>>> A new interface, Writable, is provided to abstract IndexWriter and >>>>> ParallelWriter. This is in the same spirit as the existing >>>>> Searchable and Fieldable classes. >>>>> This implementation uses java 1.5. The patch applies against >>>>> today's svn head. All tests pass, including the new >>>>> TestParallelWriter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
