I still reccomend we add a file then HowToRegenJflex.txt or something - that specifically says to use 1.5 or 1.6. I don't changing the current notice/warning is visible enough to ensure someone doesn't break this.
Robert Muir wrote: > no. its still 4.0, but i hear 1.7 will be 5.1 or 5.2 > > the only way to truly control this, would be to use something like ICU > to control the unicode version being used (and actually be faster, and > support higher version). > see http://site.icu-project.org/home/why-use-icu4j > > the issue is that lucene does not have 3rd party library dependencies, > on the other hand, i think tika and/or nutch already incorporate icu > for charset detection. > > i won't argue for this really, i know nobody wants it, but you can see > how the situation of not being able to control unicode semantics is > really difficult for a search engine. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Uwe Schindler <uschind...@pangaea.de > <mailto:uschind...@pangaea.de>> wrote: > > 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 <http://www.pangaea.de/%0AE-mail>: uschind...@pangaea.de > <mailto:uschind...@pangaea.de> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com > <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>] > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:30 PM > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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 <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com > <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>] > > >> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:21 PM > > >> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > <mailto: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 <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > >>> > > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>] > > >>> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM > > >>> *To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org > <mailto: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> > > >>> <mailto: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> > <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > >>> > > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > > <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> > <mailto: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> > > >>> <mailto: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> > <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > >>> > > >>> *From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > > <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> > <mailto: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> > > >>> <mailto: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> > > >>>> > > >>> <mailto: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> > <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > >>> <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>>] > > >>> > > >>>> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:09 PM > > >>>> > > >>>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org> <mailto:java- <mailto:java-> > > >>>> > > >> d...@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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> > > >>>> > > >>> <mailto: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> > <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de <mailto:u...@thetaphi.de>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ________________________________ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com > <mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > >>> <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-dev@lucene.apache.org> <mailto:java- <mailto:java-> > > >>>> > > >> d...@lucene.apache.org <mailto: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> > <mailto: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> > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Robert Muir > > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Robert Muir > > >>> rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com> > <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> - Mark > > >> > > >> http://www.lucidimagination.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > - Mark > > > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > > > > -- > 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
