Hi, ----- Original Message ---- From: DM Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > This sounds reasonable to me... OG: It sounded reasonable to me, too. I don't quite understand why that's SO hard to accept. Btw., I run Lucene 1.4.3 on Java 1.4.2 as well, so I'm not trying to push 1.5 because of my personal interests. OG: To be perfectly honest, and that may turn out to be a mistake, this argument is starting to sound kind of selfish - a handful of people want the latest Lucene, but won't let it advance with 1.5 contributions because 1.5 wouldn't work for them. At the same time they are not thinking of the majority that would benefit from new contributions. Again, we still run Lucene 1.4.3 on Java 1.4.2 on technorati.com, for example, and I'm purely arguing this case because I don't want to reject the nice people who contribute 1.5 code. 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, OG: Not to be mean or anything like that, but it sounds like that's a problem with the design of this particular application. It has to run on customers' computers that you are not in control of, yet designed in a monolithic write one, run anywhere fashion. Isn't this always going to be a problem for you? If your users are already users of hand-me-down computers and are very used to running old software and hardware, do they really need the latest and greatest Lucene? Why? Otis > 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]
