Java's logging is an API, not an implementation, and allows nearly unlimited
control.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:52 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
On 31/05/2006, at 7:45 AM, R
for future ease of integration.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:54 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Robert Engels wrote:
> 1.5 has built in Logging support - eliminating the need for J
On 31/05/2006, at 7:45 AM, Robert Engels wrote:
Log4j can be configured to use delegate to the standard 1.5
logging. In fact
this is preferred so you have STANDARDIZED logging support (and not a
different logger for every library).
All NEW code should use the 1.5 logging for simplicity of
.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:54 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Robert Engels wrote:
> 1.5 has built in Logging support - eliminating the need for Jakarta
logging.
Logging was first added
eks dev wrote:
LinkedHashMap for LRUs, StringBuilder...
LinkedHashMap is a Java 1.4 feature. StringBuilder is indeed 1.5.
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LinkedHashMap for LRUs, StringBuilder...
- Original Message
From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 30 May, 2006 7:51:23 PM
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
: Agreed. But, I have not heard one compelling argument for the JDK 5 for
Doug Cutting wrote on 05/30/2006 10:29 AM:
> Tomcat 5.5 does not yet support Java 1.5 language features in jsp pages,
This is not true -- I use them all the time. 1.5 features are not
supported by default, but can be enabled easily by adding this to your
jsp servlet:
compiler
Besides what has already been covered:
Lucene Query and Filter objects are marked as Serializable so a remote
client can serialize a request to a server which then rewrites and
executes the request. This allows for a Webstart or applet-based
architecture where the client can construct and send
Robert Engels wrote:
1.5 has built in Logging support - eliminating the need for Jakarta logging.
Logging was first added in Java 1.4.
That is like saying Jarkarta Collections does not use JDK 1.5. No one that
develops NEW software uses Jakarta Collections - they use the Collections
support i
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:30 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
For reference, it appears that Ant encourages Java *1.2* compatibility.
Tomcat 5.5 does not yet support Java 1.5 language features in jsp pages,
but is now using Java 1.5
For reference, it appears that Ant encourages Java *1.2* compatibility.
Tomcat 5.5 does not yet support Java 1.5 language features in jsp
pages, but is now using Java 1.5 features internally. Jakarta Commons
Logging's current release is still compatible with Java 1.2. From what
I can tell, J
Doug Cutting wrote:
Chuck Williams wrote:
I still don't understand why environments that are years behind in java
and most other apps should expect to be on the latest and greatest
lucene.
Yes, it is clear to me that you don't. The key thing is these people
are fellow members of the Lucene
Chris Hostetter wrote:
I don't follow .. won't the rubber will hit the road the first time a
committer debates committing a patch to the trunk of the core that
requires 1.5 language features? ... that could be tomorow.
Indeed. Tomorrow is another day.
Is there anyway to keyword tag issues i
Chuck Williams wrote:
I still don't understand why environments that are years behind in java
and most other apps should expect to be on the latest and greatest lucene.
Yes, it is clear to me that you don't. The key thing is these people
are fellow members of the Lucene community and we shoul
: Since we don't know the timeframe of these releases, it's hard to be
: sure what this really means. The rubber will really only hit the road
: when we schedule a 2.1 release. In effect, this punts the issue to 2.1
: release planning, which is fine by me.
I don't follow .. won't the rubber wil
Doug Cutting wrote on 05/30/2006 08:51 AM:
> Chris Hostetter wrote:
>> : Agreed. But, I have not heard one compelling argument for the JDK 5
>> for
>> : core. (JVM certainly)
>>
>> Off the top of my head...
>>
>> * Generics for cleaner more type safe APIs
>> * Varargs for cleaner APIs
>> * C
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: Agreed. But, I have not heard one compelling argument for the JDK 5 for
: core. (JVM certainly)
Off the top of my head...
* Generics for cleaner more type safe APIs
* Varargs for cleaner APIs
* Concurrency Libraries, in particular the new j.u.concurrent.locks pack
Robert Engels wrote:
I just don't understand why a "few' voices can hold back progress. These
"few" can just run older versions of Lucene. 1.5 has been released for
almost 4 years on most major platforms. Not using 1.5 for such a high
profile project is absurd.
The fact that this has generated
The ThreadLocal is a class library change, so no it would not apply here.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:51 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
: Agreed. But, I have not heard one
: Agreed. But, I have not heard one compelling argument for the JDK 5 for
: core. (JVM certainly)
Off the top of my head...
* Generics for cleaner more type safe APIs
* Varargs for cleaner APIs
* Concurrency Libraries, in particular the new j.u.concurrent.locks package
...someone also men
is something new to say,
I'll be quiet ;)
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:55 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
On May 30, 2006, at 11:45 AM, DM Smith wrote:
By stating that I needed
Erik Hatcher wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 11:45 AM, DM Smith wrote:
By stating that I needed to run on Mac OS 9, this also implies that I
need to run on OSX prior to Tiger (10.4) which does not have Java 5
and according to everything that I read, won't. OSX 10.3 does not
seem like an unreasonabl
What features should be encouraged? discouraged? not allowed?
For example, should annotations be used where possible? or is it purely
optional?
What about "static import"? I find that DoHicky.WHATS_IT a bit more
revealing than WHATS_IT, as it tells me its origin.
Should enhanced for loops b
L PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 11:55 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
On May 30, 2006, at 11:45 AM, DM Smith wrote:
> By stating that I needed to run on Mac OS 9, this also implies that I
> need to run on OSX prior to Tiger (10.4) which does not have
On May 30, 2006, at 11:45 AM, DM Smith wrote:
By stating that I needed to run on Mac OS 9, this also implies that
I need to run on OSX prior to Tiger (10.4) which does not have Java
5 and according to everything that I read, won't. OSX 10.3 does not
seem like an unreasonable target platform
Robert Engels wrote:
If you can control them to run 1.4, you can probably control them to run
1.5.
I cannot control my application's users to run Java 1.4. We moved from
Java 1.3 to Java 1.4 only after all platforms our users were running had
a Java 1.4 jvm available. We did make a conscio
s" for JDK issues which are already fixed in a later JVM.
-Original Message-
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:38 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Robert Engels wrote:
> If you need to run on OS9 then run L
raries are reason enough to move. You can't get Sun to fix these old JDK
issues, why should we be attempting to work around them.
-Original Message-
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:52 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and J
rom: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:52 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Please don't move to Java 5.
My reasons are simple (and some perhaps stem out of old information or
misinformation):
MacOS 9 does not run Java 1.5,
Here we go, monster thread. Some responses inline.
- Original Message
From: DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please don't move to Java 5.
My reasons are simple (and some perhaps stem out of old information or
misinformation):
MacOS 9 does not run Java 1.5, which is one of my target pl
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:17:04 PM
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
My concern is really with the use of GCJ with Lucene. I'd hate to see
Lucene core releases that couldn't be used with the latest "stable"
release of GCJ. Unfortunately, it's very
s are reason enough to move. You can't get Sun to fix these old JDK
issues, why should we be attempting to work around them.
-Original Message-
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:52 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1
Please don't move to Java 5.
My reasons are simple (and some perhaps stem out of old information or
misinformation):
MacOS 9 does not run Java 1.5, which is one of my target platforms.
Has Java 5 been ported to all target platforms?
Java 5 has nice syntax sugar but no real substance other
On 5/30/06, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We are actually using 1.5 too. My concern is that when someone makes
changes to the core, they have to make sure they didn't break the code,
this includes all of the contrib modules, which _could_ mean that I need
more than just 1.4 and 1.5
We are actually using 1.5 too. My concern is that when someone makes
changes to the core, they have to make sure they didn't break the code,
this includes all of the contrib modules, which _could_ mean that I need
more than just 1.4 and 1.5 to build and test the core and contrib
areas. I just
I use 1.5 JVM since 1.5 years building 1.4 and 1.5 projects which
works perfect. But if you are afraid of the management you could still
modify your local build process to set JAVA_HOME variables during
build.
Multiple JVM on a system should not be a problem AFAIK.
Won't that solve the problem?!
Would this mean that people checking out Lucene source (especially the
core) could possibly need 2 or more JDKs on their machines in order to
do a build? I know it is would be automated through the build scripts,
but it seems like _it could_ degenerate into a management nightmare.
What if peo
My concern is really with the use of GCJ with Lucene. I'd hate to see
Lucene core releases that couldn't be used with the latest "stable"
release of GCJ. Unfortunately, it's very hard to know what that
means. What's the latest version of GCJ? What Java language features
are supported in it? It
: Boy, I'd sure like to see at least one bug-fix release for 2.0
: maintain java 1.4 compatibility. Would that be 2.1?
: Could be 2.0.*. I think that is what Hoss was saying, too.
Yes, that was my point ... as far as i can tell, Lucene bug fix releases
have historically been at the "third leve
PyLucene, but it sounds like GCJ(X) will soon be up-to-date (the
>> link Andi sent was from early February). Discussion done or?
>> >
>> > Otis
>> >
>> > - Original Message ----
>> > From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
and
PyLucene, but it sounds like GCJ(X) will soon be up-to-date (the
link Andi sent was from early February). Discussion done or?
>
> Otis
>
> - Original Message
> From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, Ma
Could be 2.0.*. I think that is what Hoss was saying, too.
Otis
- Original Message
From: Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:17:43 AM
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
Boy, I&#x
be up-to-date (the link Andi sent was from early
February). Discussion done or?
>
> Otis
>
> - Original Message
> From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Lucene and
> February). Discussion done or?
>
> Otis
>
> - Original Message
> From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
>
> : important new facil
g
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
: important new facilities. Repeating my earlier question, why should a
: platform that is 2 years behind for java expect to be at the latest and
: greatest level for lucene? I'd propose 2.0 (+ branched patches) b
i haven't gone into this thread in detail, but i simply don't see real
needs for the source to use 1.5 features anytime soon, or if it's
needed at all? as far as i'm concerned is that the existing core is
proven to be fast and stable. will changing the source to using 1.5
language features make
On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 16:35 -0700, Andi Vajda wrote:
> >>> How about a binary 1.4-target distribution?
> >>
> > This would preclude use of the 1.5 class library, which contains many
> > important new facilities. Repeating my earlier question, why should a
> > platform that is 2 years behind for jav
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Chuck Williams wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote on 05/27/2006 12:01 PM:
On Sat, 27 May 2006, karl wettin wrote:
How about a binary 1.4-target distribution?
That's a great idea that might solve the problem as long as the
resulting bytecode is compatible with 1.4 and with gcj.
: important new facilities. Repeating my earlier question, why should a
: platform that is 2 years behind for java expect to be at the latest and
: greatest level for lucene? I'd propose 2.0 (+ branched patches) be the
: 1.4 release distribution, with 2.1 free to move up to 1.5.
I would ammend tha
Andi Vajda wrote on 05/27/2006 12:01 PM:
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2006, karl wettin wrote:
>
>> How about a binary 1.4-target distribution?
>
> That's a great idea that might solve the problem as long as the
> resulting bytecode is compatible with 1.4 and with gcj.
>
This would preclude use of the 1.5
sorry..
your right.
Rel 1 was released in april 2005, Rel 4 (april 2006) was the one
which made it the default.
On 28/05/2006, at 8:01 AM, karl wettin wrote:
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 07:59 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
OS/X just released their 1.5 version about 2-3 months ago.
I've been runnin
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 07:59 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> OS/X just released their 1.5 version about 2-3 months ago.
I've been running Apple 1.5 on Tiger for... one year?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
On Sat, 27 May 2006, karl wettin wrote:
How about a binary 1.4-target distribution?
That's a great idea that might solve the problem as long as the
resulting bytecode is compatible with 1.4 and with gcj.
When compiling Java Lucene for PyLucene with gcj I compile from .jar to .o
which gcj
On 28/05/2006, at 7:25 AM, Chuck Williams wrote:
Robin H. Johnson wrote on 05/27/2006 11:05 AM:
After all, Lucene comes with version numbers.
Yes it does, I just think the core functionality shouldn't be so
quick
to change away from supporting 1.4.
2 years is hardly quick. Performance,
On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 12:33 -0500, Robert Engels wrote:
> Correct. It is purely a coding issue which can lead to greater
> productivity by the developers - which helps out everyone.
+1
The easier it is to design, code and test,
the better software in shorter time.
---
On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 14:05 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:50:42PM +0200, karl wettin wrote:
> > Is that really something Lucene should worry about, how some minority
> > architectures are not up to date with the JMV?
>
> I'm just saying that for some places it may be a
Robin H. Johnson wrote on 05/27/2006 11:05 AM:
>> After all, Lucene comes with version numbers.
>>
> Yes it does, I just think the core functionality shouldn't be so quick
> to change away from supporting 1.4.
>
2 years is hardly quick. Performance, contributions from the vast
majority of
I think 2.0 should allow (and use) JDK 1.5 source code. If you need JDK 1.4
compatibility, use Lucene 1.9.
-Original Message-
From: karl wettin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 4:09 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Lucene and Java 1.5
Will code with 1.5
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:50:42PM +0200, karl wettin wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 13:09 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > As another one that I ran into, until gcj gets 1.5 going, Linux on
> > SPARC and Alpha platforms is stuck at the 1.4 level - there are no 1.5
> > jdk/jre available. I think
On Sat, 2006-05-27 at 13:09 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>
> As another one that I ran into, until gcj gets 1.5 going, Linux on
> SPARC and Alpha platforms is stuck at the 1.4 level - there are no 1.5
> jdk/jre available. I think some other platforms may be stuck at a
> similar point - possibly
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 02:50:46PM -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >As long as gcj is not implementing the new language features in 1.5, I'm
> >stuck
> >with 1.4.
> Good point Andi... that's a pretty compelling reason to stick with 1.4 for
> now.
A
so far:
pro:
1. Code readability
2. Faster contribs (as many of active developers moved to it allready)
3. "moving forward effect" as sooner or later it will be
the same argument for 1.6, 1.7... good feeling to stay close
4. Some performance boost not only from better hotspot, but from new jvm
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Chris Hostetter wrote:
:
: As long as gcj is not implementing the new language features in 1.5, I'm stuck
: with 1.4. If the Lucene core started using 1.5-only features, I'd have to
: create more and more patches for PyLucene to still build and stay current with
: Java Luce
Another issue concerns user contributions of patches and enhancements. I
have a significant body of code that might be contributed, all in 1.5,
to do things that have been requested by others who participate in the
lists. As most of the development community is using 1.5 now, Lucene may
get fewer g
: idea to think about using the 1.5 platform in future development. What's
: about using the 1.5 platform as a requirement on new projects like the
: contrib GDATA Server? We gonna have the same problem with the Gdata
someone mentioned the idea that contrib packages should be free to
use/require
I fully agree with you yonik, it won't be a good idea to change to 1.5
within the patch releases of the version 2. But it is generally a good
idea to think about using the 1.5 platform in future development.
What's about using the 1.5 platform as a requirement on new projects
like the contrib GDAT
:
: As long as gcj is not implementing the new language features in 1.5, I'm stuck
: with 1.4. If the Lucene core started using 1.5-only features, I'd have to
: create more and more patches for PyLucene to still build and stay current with
: Java Lucene.
As I understand it (based on nothing more t
: Java 1.5 has nice features, sure. But these features are mostly useful
: during development, they are less usefull for existing and proven software
: like Lucene. I think at least the core of Lucene should stay compatible
As I understood it, the long term road map has been that 2.0.* would be t
On 5/27/06, Andi Vajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As long as gcj is not implementing the new language features in 1.5, I'm stuck
with 1.4.
Good point Andi... that's a pretty compelling reason to stick with 1.4 for now.
-Yonik
http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search
On 5/27/06, Daniel Naber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Samstag 27 Mai 2006 18:11, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I understand legacy situations, but surely anyone doing a major Lucene
> upgrade can upgrade the JVM at the same time (the performance boosts
> alone are worth it.)
You can get the improved p
On Sat, 27 May 2006, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 5/27/06, Daniel Naber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If someone wants to add 1.5-dependent modules to
the contrib area that would be okay for me though.
+1
As far as Java1.4 or Java1.5 for Lucene core, I agree that it would
almost be nicer for develo
Correct. It is purely a coding issue which can lead to greater productivity
by the developers - which helps out everyone.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 12:09 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
On Samstag 27 Mai 2006 18:11, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I understand legacy situations, but surely anyone doing a major Lucene
> upgrade can upgrade the JVM at the same time (the performance boosts
> alone are worth it.)
You can get the improved performance by running 1.4 code with the 1.5 JVM,
righ
On 5/27/06, Daniel Naber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If someone wants to add 1.5-dependent modules to
the contrib area that would be okay for me though.
+1
As far as Java1.4 or Java1.5 for Lucene core, I agree that it would
almost be nicer for developers than users. Maybe we should try and
ge
niel Naber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 8:45 AM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene and Java 1.5
On Samstag 27 Mai 2006 13:18, Chuck Williams wrote:
> 1.5 has been out for almost 2 years now and has substantial
> improvements over 1.4.x, includ
On Samstag 27 Mai 2006 13:18, Chuck Williams wrote:
> 1.5 has been out for almost 2 years now and has substantial improvements
> over 1.4.x, including generics for example. Isn't it time for Lucene to
> adopt 1.5?
Java 1.5 has nice features, sure. But these features are mostly useful
during dev
I fully agree with you. It is defiantly time to use all the new
features 1.5 provides.
It's quiet a funny coincidence that Karl started this discussion, I
would have done it instead.
I'm working on a contrib project under the Google SummerOfCode program.
The project is called GData Server which is
1.5 has been out for almost 2 years now and has substantial improvements
over 1.4.x, including generics for example. Isn't it time for Lucene to
adopt 1.5?
Chuck
Simon Willnauer wrote on 05/27/2006 12:47 AM:
> I guess the discussion about switching to 1.5 will startup right now
> due to the 2.0
I guess the discussion about switching to 1.5 will startup right now
due to the 2.0 release of lucene.
But I have doubt about 1.5 code will be commited yet.
simon
On 5/27/06, karl wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will code with 1.5 syntax be committed?
---
Will code with 1.5 syntax be committed?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
80 matches
Mail list logo
