On Jan 17, 2008, at 7:57 PM, robert engels wrote:
If they are " no longer actively developing the portion of the code
that's broken, aren't seeking the new feature, etc", and they stay
back on old versions... isn't that exactly what we want? They can
stay on the old version, and new application development uses the
newer version.
It would be different if it was a core JRE interface or similar -
this is an optional jar.
Part of what always made Windows so fragile is that as it evolved
they tried to maintain backward compatibility - making working with
the old/new code and fixing bugs almost impossible. The bloat became
impossible to deal with.
I bet, if you did a poll of all Lucene users, you would find a
majority of them still only run 1.4.3, or maybe 1.9. Even with 2.0,
2.3, or 3.0, that is still going to be the case.
I found that upgrading from 1.4.3 (our first version) to 1.9, to
2.0, ... 2.2 and even 2.3 rc was painless.
The deprecations in 1.9 gave clear guidance on how to do the upgrade.
Very easy to do. And with Lucene's robust test suite, I had great
confidence that it would work without much testing.
Going forward was simply a matter of dropping in the new jar and
enjoying the improved performance.
The forward compatibility of the actual index was a great boon.
So, while one may not be actively developing code, dropping in a new
jar and getting huge performance gains is a great plus.
Many thanks to you all for such a stable product.
-- DM Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
