Why not just make 2.1 use 1.5, and if there are enough 1.4 people they can back-port the changes into 2.0 using JDK 1.4 only code? If they decide it is too much work, they can move forward to JDK 1.5, stick with Lucene 2.0 release X, or find another search project.
Although I agree with Doug that Lucene is a "library" and there are different factors that control the dependencies, JDK 1.5 is also no where near bleeding edge, with several years of stable deployment on many platforms, and no one is stating that Lucene will not work on those platforms, just not Lucene 2.1. It is like trying to support COM on MS-DOS - it just didn't happen (as far as I know). It was possible, but just wasn't worth the effort. If Lucene 2.1 encourages other companies that provide JREs to move to support 1.5 that is even better. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Tsang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:06 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5) On 6/17/06, Chuck Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 over night thing. > > I disagree. 1.5 was specifically designed to make transition easy, > including the inclusion of "non-features" that ensure smooth > interoperability (e.g., raw types and no runtime presence whatsoever > of generics -- quite different from how it was done in .Net 2.0 for example). But will 1.4 jvm be able to run the new Lucene w/ 1.5 core? > > > > > Secondly can we specifically find places where some people _will_ > > contribute code immediately if it's 1.5 is accepted? > > I already have. That's what started this second round of debate. What is it? Who else? How many? Do we have statistics? We have statistics of number of users between 1.4 vs. 1.5 (which btw didn't present a significant polarization), but how about actual numbers potential of contributions between the 2? > > > > > Like what I have suggested before, why not have contribution modules > > that act as a transition into 1.5 code? Much like what other > > framework has a "tiger" module. This module may have say, a 1.5 > > compatible layer on top of 1.4 core, or other components of lucene > > that was made to be extensible, e.g. 1.5 version of QueryParser, > > Directory, etc. > > I think this would make it unnecessarily complex. How is it unnecessary or complex? If it only means layering, extending classes, adding implementations, it should be relatively easy with the existing design. It's something we do everyday regardless what lucene's direction takes. > > Chuck > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Lastly, how did the commercial application people who use Lucene in their product respond? ray, --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
