[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-593?page=comments#action_12416657 ]
Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-593:
-
Kåre & Karl - thanks, good catch, the field is interned in the ctor now.
If you have a patch for hasNext() problem, please at
--- Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was a joke.
;-)
Yes, I did realize that. But I have seen earlier
references, with more serious tone... and it did seem
like some people actually believed 1.4 compatibility
was a "back to stone age" requirement.
Anyway, lots of good points being
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-559?page=comments#action_12416646 ]
Daniel Naber commented on LUCENE-559:
-
By testcase I meant classes that are JUnit tests (i.e. "... extends TestCase"),
as you can see in the examples in the src/test direc
Hello again,
the discussion went quiet well but there is no solution for the
problem using multiple gdata server instances behind a load balancer.
I will definitely stick to my own token, using the jsession id I will
tie myself to a particular server instance. Not all servers
replicate sessions s
Chuck, you nailed it!
This reverse view is really what brings clarity, at least to me. It boils down
to the question "Who is loosing what?"
Move to 1.5: some people will not have an oportunity to use new cool features
that will come in 2.x versions. So they know the feeling, they cannot use co
Tatu Saloranta wrote on 06/17/2006 06:54 AM:
> And it's
> bit curious as to what the current mad rush regarding
> migration is -- beyond the convenience and syntactic
> sugar, only the concurrency package seems like a
> tempting immediate reason?
>
The only people who keep bringing up these no
Ray Tsang wrote on 06/17/2006 06:29 AM:
> I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
> code or not. We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways. But
> we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy. I believe
> the transition from 1.4 to 1.5 is not an ov
Thanks Hoss.
If this is the case, who ever has the karma to fix this, can you take care
of it?
Also, I can't figure out how to assign, close or even edit a JIRA issue
opened against Lucene.Net. For example, take a look at:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-6 and I can't see anything
It was a joke.
-Original Message-
From: Tatu Saloranta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:55 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
--- Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should port L
--- Robert Engels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
>
> If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick
> with version 1.9 (or
> 2.0 in this case).
>
> If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
>
> Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior
>
I think the problem right now isn't whether we are going to have 1.5
code or not. We will eventually have to have 1.5 code anyways. But
we need a sound plan that will make the transition easy. I believe
the transition from 1.4 to 1.5 is not an over night thing.
Secondly can we specifically fi
: I don't think this is intentional. Something is broken in the JIRA setup.
: I have posted this email on general@incubator.apache.org to see if folks
: there may know what's the problem and fix it.
It looks like when the LUCENENET Jira project was setup, the "Permission
Scheme" and "Notificatio
Poor horse... :(
My aggregate thoughts about this (can't move to 1.5 because ) is:
- You don't have to.
- Just keep using 2.0.*.
- 2.0.* will be viable until well in 2007, I bet.
There will _always_ be unhappy people. Java 1.4 folks are clearly a minority
(survey).
Otis
- Original Message
Do you have any hard numbers to support this? The last time I checked, gcj
had minimal improvement over JVM 1.5.
-Original Message-
From: Vic Bancroft [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:31 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene a
Until there is a free java 5 alternative, it would be nice to have a
clean compile in 1.4. We might also consider waiting until gcj does the
1.5 move, since some of us are loving the native binaries, particularly
on x86_64.
How else can you index billions of documents (aside from expensive bi
Hi Chris,
I don't think this is intentional. Something is broken in the JIRA setup.
I have posted this email on general@incubator.apache.org to see if folks
there may know what's the problem and fix it.
Thanks for noticing
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMA
On Saturday 17 June 2006 01:33, markharw00d wrote:
>
> That's a long-winded way of saying "-1" unless I hear of any arguments
> which are based on something much more substantial than "1.5 makes
> coding easier".
As for coding convenience from 1.4: last time I had a look there was
not a single
Is it intentional that the Lucene.NET Jira notifications are being sent to
java-dev instead of lucene-net-dev, or is this just a Jira configuration
cut/paste mistake?
: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 04:34:30 + (GMT+00:00)
: From: "AqD (JIRA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.or
18 matches
Mail list logo
