Paolo, The code changes I needed to do where necessitate by the move to Lucene 3.0.3, not from the use of the Apache LARQ
for example, changed IndexReader.isLocked(luceneDirectory) --> IndexWriter.isLocked(LuceneDirectory), Directory dir = new FSDirectory(lucenePath) --> dir = new SimpleFSDirectory(lucenePath), etc. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information. Thank you. Regards, Nikolaos Abatzis New River Systems Corporation 1890 Preston White Drive, Suite 240 Reston, VA 20191 ________________________________________ From: Paolo Castagna [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LARQ: what's the plan to cope with Lucene 3.x? [RE: ARQ + Lucene] Nikolaos Abatzis wrote: > Francois, > > I have gone down that path of getting and building larq and so far so good. > So instead of importing the larq packages under com.hp.... I use the ones > from org.apache.jena... > We have also moved to lucene-core-3.0.3 which necessitated some changes in > calls. Hi Nikolaos, are you using LARQ from trunk? What "changes in calls" were necessary? If there are necessary changes in the current LARQ trunk to use Lucene 3.0.3, please, let me know... since I don't see them. > I did have to change some method calls to comply with the new > Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information. > Thank you. Or, share problems with us on the mailing list or JIRA so we can fix them for everybody: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA Thanks, Paolo > > Regards, > > Nikolaos Abatzis > New River Systems Corporation > 1890 Preston White Drive, Suite 240 > Reston, VA 20191 > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: LARQ: what's the plan to cope with Lucene 3.x? [RE: ARQ + Lucene] > > Hello Jenarous folks, > > this is my 1st experience with this list & with all things ARQ & LARQ; > I've been sticking to published releases of TDB, 0.8.9 as of this writing, > & proceeding nice & smooth so far. > > It's Lucene Java I have problems with, especially contribs, > & it would be a relief if I could move away from 2.9 towards 3.1. > Unfortunately, LARQ stumbles on backwards incompatibilities in Lucene 3.1, > which prevents me from just swapping the jars for the 2.9 ones in the TDB > release. > Hence the question in the header of this mail. > > I've seen a similar concerned raised here: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-jena-users/201103.mbox/%3CD6C1698BD2D9B342B7CE2AB63EF2C7B1019360E50F@VA3DIAXVS311.RED001.local%3E > So one month ago, the plan was to spin LARQ off into a separate module, > that would then be available dependent on Lucene 3.x; > are you still on this path? If so, what would be the the schedule? > Today, would you still give me the same advice you gave to Mr Abatzis; > to check LARQ out into dev from the SForge repository? > > Thanks in advance for your help. > Best regards, > François Jurain. > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Retrouvez toutes les astuces pour être belle et mince cet été sur > http://actu.voila.fr/evenementiel/beaute-minceur2011/ > > > > >
