Good point so maybe upgrading to 2.3 is the way to go for now.. if 2.3 is not ready when we are ready we can just "remove" the shipped jackrabbit.
Bye, Norman 2011/2/16 agks mehx <[email protected]>: > yes, if we are ready for 3.0 GA but jackrabbit 2.3 is not, we can all > moonlight on jackrabbit code and get it to GA ;-) > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Jackrabbit 2.2.0 has just been released in December 2010. >> It may still take time for 2.3.0. >> >> In the meantime, we can release james milestones with jackrabbit snapshots. >> JCR-2415 is fixed, and jackrabbit pom parent states lucene 3.0.3. >> ( >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jackrabbit/trunk/jackrabbit-parent/pom.xml >> ) >> >> If 2.3.0 is not there for 3.0 GA, we can decide what we do at that time >> >> Wdyt? >> - Eric >> >> >> >> On 16/02/2011 01:06, agks mehx wrote: >> >>> switch to jackrabbit 2.3?? but of course i don't know what are the >>> implications, so this is just a suggestion if it is only a little bit of >>> work >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Norman Maurer<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Forgot to say that jackrabbit 2.3 will using lucene 3.x. >>>> >>>> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCR-2415 >>>> >>>> Bye, >>>> Norman >>>> >>>> 2011/2/15 Norman Maurer<[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi there, >>>>> >>>>> I worked on some lucene based solution to provide some high >>>>> performance Message search which is needed for IMAP SEARCH command. So >>>>> far the implementation works out very well and will make it easy to >>>>> support some more search stuff easy. >>>>> >>>>> See: >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAILBOX-10 >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1070933&view=rev >>>>> >>>>> The implementation is written in such a way as it is usable with every >>>>> Mailbox implementation ( in theory ;)). The only problem I'm facing is >>>>> with our usage of jackrabbit. Jackrabbit is lucene 2.x for its >>>>> indexes, but the LuceneMessageSearchIndex need lucene 3.0.x. So what >>>>> should we do to not get in trouble with the different versions of >>>>> lucene. With osgi we could handle it without problems but we not >>>>> support osgi yet. >>>>> >>>>> So any thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Bye, >>>>> Norman >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
