Did 1.6 change the unicode version? Robert? ----- UWE SCHINDLER Webserver/Middleware Development PANGAEA - Publishing Network for Geoscientific and Environmental Data MARUM - University of Bremen Room 2500, Leobener Str., D-28359 Bremen Tel.: +49 421 218 65595 Fax: +49 421 218 65505 http://www.pangaea.de/ E-mail: uschind...@pangaea.de
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:30 PM > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > > And what happens when someone regenerates it with 1.6 without knowing? > > Uwe Schindler wrote: > > I check this by generating the file with 1.4 and 1.5. The 1.4 version > will > > not change anymore, so we just leave the java file no jflex anymore. The > old > > one is used for Lucene until 2.9, if you use matchVersion=LUCENE_30, the > new > > one is used, which can also be regenerated. > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:21 PM > >> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > >> > >> Good point - and that likely means the current warning is not working - > >> what can we do to improve it? > >> > >> Perhaps a new text file called jflexregen or something, and it > >> specifically says you must use java 1.5? > >> > >> Uwe Schindler wrote: > >> > >>> I think the regenerated code in Standard is since years no longer > >>> generated with 1.4 J Most developers use 1.5 or even 1.6. So it > >>> already changed incompatible. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- > >>> Uwe Schindler > >>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > >>> http://www.thetaphi.de > >>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >>> > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM > >>> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > >>> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Uwe, thats probably a good solution I think. just as long as we > >>> document somewhere, > >>> I think there is some warning verbage in StandardTokenizer already > >>> about this. > >>> > >>> NOTE: if you change StandardTokenizerImpl.jflex and need to regenerate > >>> the tokenizer, remember to use JRE 1.4 to run jflex (before > >>> Lucene 3.0). This grammar now uses constructs (eg :digit:, > >>> :letter:) whose meaning can vary according to the JRE used to > >>> run jflex. See > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1126 for details. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de > >>> <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> wrote: > >>> > >>> But it is a general warning that should be placed in the Wiki: If you > >>> upgrade from Java 1.4 to Java 5, think about reindexing. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It has definitely nothing to do with 3.0, because uses could have > >>> changed (and most of them have) before. > >>> > >>> ----- > >>> Uwe Schindler > >>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > >>> http://www.thetaphi.de > >>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >>> > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>] > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 PM > >>> > >>> > >>> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org> > >>> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> right, my point is its true its nothing to do with Lucene at all, > >>> > >> really. > >> > >>> but the reality is we should clarify this to users I think. > >>> > >>> Its especially complex in the current StandardTokenizer, which uses a > >>> mix of hardcoded ranges and properties, can you tell me if you should > >>> reindex for given language X? > >>> I wouldn't want to answer that question right now. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de > >>> <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> wrote: > >>> > >>> We tried out: Character.getType() for these two chars: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Java 5: > >>> '\u00AD' = 16 > >>> '\u06DD' = 16 > >>> > >>> Java 1.4: > >>> '\u00AD' = 20 > >>> '\u06DD' = 7 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The first is the soft hyphen. > >>> > >>> ----- > >>> Uwe Schindler > >>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > >>> http://www.thetaphi.de > >>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >>> > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>] > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:37 PM > >>> > >>> > >>> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org> > >>> *Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> right, its nothing to do with lucene, instead due to property changes, > >>> etc. > >>> > >>> i just think we should inform users on java 1.4/2.9 that if they > >>> upgrade to java 1.5/3.0, they should reindex. > >>> > >>> the reason i say this about properties, is there are some that change > >>> that will affect tokenizers, i give two examples, a hyphen that > >>> changes from punctuation to format (might affect > >>> > >> SolrWordDelimiterFilter), > >> > >>> and arabic ayah which changes from NSM to format, which surely affects > >>> ArabicLetterTokenizer. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu > >>> <mailto:sar...@syr.edu>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Robert, > >>> > >>> I agree that the Unicode version supported by the JVM, as you say, > >>> really has nothing to do with Lucene. > >>> > >>> The disruption here is users' upgrading from Java 1.4 to 1.5+, not > >>> when they upgrade Lucene. I'd guess with few exceptions that most > >>> people have been using Lucene with 1.5+ for a couple of years now, > >>> > >> though. > >> > >>> But even the upgrade from Java 1.4 to 1.5+ will have (had) zero impact > >>> on most Lucene users, assuming that most use Latin-1 exclusively; > >>> although I haven't looked, I'd be surprised if Latin-1 characters > >>> changed much, if at all, from Unicode 3.0 to 4.0. > >>> > >>> It would be useful, I think, to include (a pointer to?) a description > >>> of the details of the Unicode 3.0->4.0 differences in the Lucene 3.0 > >>> release notes, since the minimum required Java version, and so also > >>> the supported Unicode version, changes then. > >>> > >>> Steve > >>> > >>> > >>> On 11/16/2009 at 2:15 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > >>> > >>>> the problem is that the properties have changed for various > >>>> > >> characters, > >> > >>>> and new characters were added. > >>>> > >>>> it really has nothing to do with lucene, but the idea you can go from > >>>> jdk 1.4/lucene 2.9 to jdk 1.5/lucene3.0 without reindexing is not > >>>> > >> true. > >> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de > >>>> > >>> <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> But an UTF-8 stream from Java 4 can still be read with Java 5, > >>>> what is the problem? Java 5 extended Unicode support, but an index > >>>> created with older versions can still be read. UTF-8 is standardized. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- > >>>> Uwe Schindler > >>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > >>>> http://www.thetaphi.de > >>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > >>>> > >>> <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>] > >>> > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:09 PM > >>>> > >>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java- > >>>> > >> d...@lucene.apache.org> > >> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> uwe, on topic please read my comment on LUCENE-1689, because > >>>> unicode version was bumped in jdk 1.5, i believe this index backwards > >>>> compatibility is only theoretical > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de > >>>> > >>> <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 2.9 has *not* the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0 > >>>> cannot be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support was > >>>> removed and therefore the version number of the stored fields file > was > >>>> upgraded. But indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and support may > >>>> > >> get > >> > >>>> removed in 4.0. 3.0 Indexes can be read until version 4.9. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Uwe > >>>> > >>>> ----- > >>>> Uwe Schindler > >>>> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > >>>> http://www.thetaphi.de > >>>> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com > >>>> > >>> <mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com>] > >>> > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto:java- > >>>> > >> d...@lucene.apache.org> > >> > >>>> Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be > >>>> necessarily able to read your > >>>> 2.4 index file formats? I suppose if you've already upgraded > to > >>>> 2.9, then all is well because > >>>> 2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users > >>>> upgraded from 2.4 to 2.9. > >>>> > >>>> If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary, > >>>> but if you're on 2.4 right now, > >>>> you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1. > >>>> > >>>> -jake > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson > >>>> <erickerick...@gmail.com <mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see > >>>> if everyone's assumptions are aligned. So with the discussion about > >>>> branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is there going to be any 3.0 release > >>>> intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a lot of > >>>> work by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch > >>>> and carrying on with 3.1 as the first *supported* 3.x release? > >>>> > >>>> Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm > not > >>>> sure *as a user* I see a good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a > >>>> "beta/snapshot" release to get a head start on cleaning up my code > >>>> does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And having a base > >>>> 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful > >>>> for that. > >>>> > >>>> That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release" > >>>> that's out there and unsupported. > >>>> > >>>> Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't > >>>> remember it. Although my memory isn't what it used to be (but > >>>> some would claim it never was<G>)... > >>>> > >>>> Erick > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Muir > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Muir > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Robert Muir > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> - Mark > >> > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
