On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
This sounds reasonable to me...
But it is not at all reasonable for us. Our application is designed
with a write one, run anywhere mentality for the hardware/OS base
that our users currently have. Again many of our users use old,
beyond belief machines that anyone in their right mind would have
gotten rid of. Wait, that's precisely why they have them. They are
hand me downs from those who were in their right mind....
Recently we went through an exercise to "migrate" to Java 5. We
upgraded all our iterator loops, made the use of collections type-
safe, added annotations, refactored our type-safe enums..., every
last new language feature was examined and applied if it did not
affect performance. There was really no necessity to do it. We did it
for "fun."
That release was not received well and we found out that we have a
much larger base of users on Mac 10.3 and earlier.
Unfortunately, we also made other material changes and going back to
Java 1.4 was a fall forward rather than a revert. But we did go back
to Java 1.4.
All releases of BibleDesktop for the last 4 years support MacOS 9 and
higher, Windows 98 and higher (don't know whether it runs on Win95)
and Linux as far back as I know.
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
