This sounds reasonable to me...
Robert Engels wrote:
I don't follow...
If a user came to you and said I want to run BibleDesktop, and they have
MS-DOS, you would tell them you can't (or you might have to run the very old
BibleDesktop 1.0).
If they told you they have Windows 98 with Java 1.4 and 256mb or memory, you
would say you can run BibleDesktop 2.0 (which includes Lucene 2.0).
If they told you they have Windows XP with Java 1.5, you would say you can
run BibleDesktop 3.0 (which includes Lucene 2.1).
Certainly seems like a packaging/marketing issue for you. Your users would
not know if they were running Lucene 1.4, 1.9 2.0 or 2.1, nor would they
care.
-----Original Message-----
From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:17 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5)
On Jun 20, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: DM Smith
On 6/20/06, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: Sorry, for some reason my Yahoo
email doesn't prepend ">" on replies, so I'll use "OG" for my lines.
In my situation, I am constantly working on improving an open source
application. Our use of Lucene is very trivial (from a lucene
perspective) but critical to the application. If there are bug fixes,
enhancements and performance improvements, I want to use them to
improve my user's experience. So, each time there is a release of
Lucene, I get it, test it and if it in itself offers an improvement, I
release our application just upgrading the lucene jar.
OG: Again, there have been a LOT of JVM and JDK improvements since
1.4, too, but you are still using 1.4.
I am using the Java 5 compiler to build a 1.4 compatible binary. So I
get the compiler improvements for all my users.
OG: But I benchmarked Java 1.4 and 1.5 a few weeks ago. 1.5 is
_substantially_ faster. If you want performance improvements, why
not also upgrade Java then? Ths really bugs me. People want the
latest and greatest Lucene, but are okay with the old Java, yet
they claim they want performance, bug fixes, etc.
It's not up to me. Each user of BibleDesktop has to decide for
themselves. Users of MacOS 10.3 and earlier are stuck using Java 1.4.
Users that have upgraded to Java 5 get the advantages of that
runtime. As for me I am running Java 5.
One can get the performance gains just by using the Java 5 jre.
OG: Correct. But one can also not get a performance improvement or
a bug fix if it comes as part of an external contribution that
happens to use 1.5 because the contributor uses 1.5 in his/her work
and doesn't have time to "downgrade" the code, just so it can be
accepted in Lucene.
That's the core argument that you are making and it is a good one. If
it could be designated in Jira whether the attachment were Java 5
then others (perhaps myself) could take the patch, downgrade it and
attach it to the same issue. It sure would beat forking the project.
How many external contributions are to the "core" Lucene?
If the "core" Lucene contribution can be applied and then
"downgraded" to Java 1.4 easily, what harm is in that?
OG: I don't know the number, but JIRA would be the place to
look. My guess is about a dozen or more people.
Steve Rowe found something that can "downgrade" 1.5 code to 1.4 and
looks promising.
If so then perhaps the committers could run the code through it after
applying the patch. Then the contributers would not be adversely
affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Grant Ingersoll
Sr. Software Engineer
Center for Natural Language Processing
Syracuse University
School of Information Studies
335 Hinds Hall
Syracuse, NY 13244
http://www.cnlp.org
Voice: 315-443-5484
Fax: 315-443-6886
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
