Chuck Williams wrote:
I think the last discussion ended with the main counter-argument being
lack of support by gjc. Current top of GJC News:
*June 6, 2006* RMS approved the plan to use the Eclipse compiler as
the new gcj front end. Work is being done on the |gcj-eclipse| branch;
it can alread
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, robert engels wrote:
It's been years and GCJ still doesn't have anywhere near full 1.4 classpath
libraries.
So now if we want to write code for Lucene we have to know what libraries are
available for GCJ?
GCJ is a joke.
It looks like classpath is quite close to 100%
It's been years and GCJ still doesn't have anywhere near full 1.4
classpath libraries.
So now if we want to write code for Lucene we have to know what
libraries are available for GCJ?
GCJ is a joke.
On Jul 11, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Andi Vajda wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, DM Smith wrote:
Ec
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, DM Smith wrote:
Eclipse has a built in compiler called ecj and it can compile Java 1.6 code
today. However, unless classes are provided at runtime for linking, one will
get build errors.
It looks like ecj is going to replace the gcj java front-end compiler thereby
makin
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Probably this would get fixed more quickly if someone contributed a patch to
JavaCC. Even it were not committed, we could build our own version of
JavaCC. Any intrepid volunteers?
For patches that seem too kludgy to make it into Lucene's sources (fo
On Jul 11, 2006, at 3:51 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
I'd be interested in doing this but what is it that we're after in
'supporting gcj' actually ?
I think it would sufficient to:
1. Compile only .jar and .class with gcj (not .java).
2. Pass all unit tests on a single platfor
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:17 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say
that
we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports
those
features. Does that seem reasonable?
Seems potentially a little s
Andi Vajda wrote:
Just last week, a PyLucene user got it to work on Solaris. I have no
access to a Solaris machine to validate this. If I had my choice of
platform, I'd pick one of (in order of preference):
- Mac OS X (Intel or PPC)
- a recent Red Hat Linux since this is the one most gcj de
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
I'd be interested in doing this but what is it that we're after in
'supporting gcj' actually ?
I think it would sufficient to:
1. Compile only .jar and .class with gcj (not .java).
2. Pass all unit tests on a single platform.
Just
Andi Vajda wrote:
I'd be interested in doing this but what is it that we're after in
'supporting gcj' actually ?
I think it would sufficient to:
1. Compile only .jar and .class with gcj (not .java).
2. Pass all unit tests on a single platform.
This would provide an existence proof that Lucene
Vic Bancroft wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:17 PM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Cutting wrote:
>>>
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that
we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those
features. Does that seem
robert engels wrote:
Seems silly to support 1.5 and not do it this way.
Sometimes a little silliness is some serious fun! Just give me a rubber
nose, since I am just clowning around trying to build Andi's kewly
contrib/db using gcj on the slightly stylish db-4.4.20 and je-3.0.12 . . .
O
Agreed. I think those that are reliant on GCJ should plan on
expending the effort to do whatever backporting is needed to make
Lucene work on it. It should also be a GCJ branch or version. Seems
silly to support 1.5 and not do it this way.
On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:17 PM, Daniel John Debrunne
Doug Cutting wrote:
> Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that
> we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those
> features. Does that seem reasonable?
Seems potentially a little strange to me. Does this mean Lucene would be
limited to the set
Andi Vajda wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say
that we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release
supports those features. Does that seem reaso
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Andi Vajda wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that we
will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those
features. Does that seem reasonable?
+1
If we u
Andi Vajda wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that
we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those
features. Does that seem reasonable?
+1
If we use this criteria, then we should probably of
On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Chuck Williams wrote:
I prefer to contribute to Lucene, but my workload simply
does not allow time to be spent on backporting.
I'll stand by my offer to do the backporting when it is possible and
does not do violence to the implementation.
I'd prefer to wait
Doug Cutting wrote on 07/08/2006 09:41 AM:
> Chuck Williams wrote:
>> I only work in 1.5 and use its features extensively. I don't think
>> about 1.4 at all, and so have no idea how heavily dependent the code in
>> question is on 1.5.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I won't be able to contribute anything sub
On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say
that we will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release
supports those features. Does that seem reasonable?
I have been doing a bit of reading on GCJ compatibility. I
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Doug Cutting wrote:
Since GCJ is effectively available on all platforms, we could say that we
will start accepting 1.5 features when a GCJ release supports those features.
Does that seem reasonable?
+1
Andi..
-
Chuck Williams wrote:
I doubt any single contribution will change anyone's mind. I would like
to have clarity on the 1.5 decision before deciding whether or not to
contribute this and other things. My ParallelWriter contribution, which
also requires 1.5, is already sitting in jira.
Sitting in
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
I'm new to Lucene but not Apache, this is not how Apache projects are
meant to work. All decisions must be on the mailing lists and decisions
are made by the community via "consensus gathering", not a sub-set of
folks off the list. Or am I reading too much into this c
DM Smith wrote:
> However, I think you have identified that the core people need to
> make a decision and the rest of us need to go with it. So, I suggest
> that Doug convene such a meeting of the minds and communicate the
> decision to the rest of us.
I'm new to Lucene but not Apache, thi
DM Smith wrote on 07/07/2006 07:07 PM:
> Otis,
> First let me say, I don't want to rehash the arguments for or
> against Java 1.5.
This is an emotional issue for people on both sides.
> However, I think you have identified that the core people need to
> make a decision and the rest of us
Otis,
First let me say, I don't want to rehash the arguments for or
against Java 1.5. We can all go back and read the last two major
threads on the issue. I don't think there is anything new to say.
However, I think statements like:
"no strong arguments" (I think the
AM
Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion
to ParallelReader
+1
Do you want to post it on the user list? It might also be good to put
it up on the main website.
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Grant: how to poll users? How about this:
> http://www.quim
ng for one...
Otis
- Original Message
From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:01:30 PM
Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion
to ParallelReader
In addition to performance,
he.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:01:30 PM
Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion
to ParallelReader
> In addition to performance, productivity and functionality benefits, my
> main argument for 1.5 is that it is used by the vast majority of luc
In addition to performance, productivity and functionality benefits, my
main argument for 1.5 is that it is used by the vast majority of lucene
community members.
I am not so sure about this. Perhaps we should take a poll on the user
list? Not even sure how that would be managed or counted
I think the last discussion ended with the main counter-argument being
lack of support by gjc. Current top of GJC News:
> *June 6, 2006* RMS approved the plan to use the Eclipse compiler as
> the new gcj front end. Work is being done on the |gcj-eclipse| branch;
> it can already build libgcj. Thi
31 matches
Mail list logo
