It sounds like you did something ill-advised. Why change your code to 1.5 if a significant portion of your users can run it, and the previous release was not essentially bug free (if it was, your users would not have seen any difference).
It also seems very unlikely you need any significant changes to Lucene (I reviewed your projects), and if Lucene progresses along with the current state of hardware your users won't be able to run it anyway. I still don't understand the harm in BibleDesktop staying at 2.0 (even forever if you'd like - so you'd have one version). At some point Lucene WILL BE 1.5, your users will still not be able to run it - what would you do then - you would run the last version of Lucene that worked with 1.4.2. Your users obviously don't use the latest and greatest software, so why should Lucene be any different. In the meantime, maybe the good lord will see fit to perform some miracle and upgrade your user's systems. -----Original Message----- From: DM Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:58 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Results (Re: Survey: Lucene and Java 1.4 vs. 1.5) 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
