[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1126?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12557988#action_12557988
 ] 

Steven Rowe commented on LUCENE-1126:
-------------------------------------

In part my imprecise characterization of the process comes from what is likely 
a misunderstanding of the Lucene-Java release process - when you said:

bq. I'm not positive, but couldn't this result in situations where a committer 
using a 1.5 JVM could generate and commit a StandardTokenizerImpl.java that had 
would have a different behavior then if he was using 1.4 - all of which would 
be completely independent of whether or not the release engineer of the next 
release compiled the resulting grammer using 1.4?

I assumed you meant that during the release process, the lexical scanner source 
(.java file) would be regenerated from the grammar (.jflex file).  And in this 
scenario, I meant to refer to "compile-time" as the entire build process - raw 
source to jar assembly, *including* lexical scanner generation - undertaken 
when producing a binary release.

But of course you're right :) .  The JVM version being used during 
source-generation-time (occurring prior to, and potentially not contiguously 
with, bytecode-generation-time) determines the version of Unicode used to 
define the meaning of "letter" and "digit".


> Simplify StandardTokenizer JFlex grammar
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1126
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1126
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Analysis
>    Affects Versions: 2.2
>            Reporter: Steven Rowe
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.4
>
>         Attachments: LUCENE-1126.patch
>
>
> Summary of thread entitled "Fullwidth alphanumeric characters, plus a 
> question on Korean ranges" begun by Daniel Noll on java-user, and carried 
> over to java-dev:
> On 01/07/2008 at 5:06 PM, Daniel Noll wrote:
> > I wish the tokeniser could just use Character.isLetter and
> > Character.isDigit instead of having to know all the ranges itself, since
> > the JRE already has all this information.  Character.isLetter does
> > return true for CJK characters though, so the ranges would still come in
> > handy for determining what kind of letter they are.  I don't support
> > JFlex has a way to do this...
> The DIGIT macro could be replaced by JFlex's predefined character class 
> [:digit:], which has the same semantics as java.lang.Character.isDigit().
> Although JFlex's predefined character class [:letter:] (same semantics as 
> java.lang.Character.isLetter()) includes CJK characters, there is a way to 
> handle this using JFlex's regex negation syntax {{!}}.  From [the JFlex 
> documentation|http://jflex.de/manual.html]:
> bq. [T]he expression that matches everything of {{a}} not matched by {{b}} is 
> !(!{{a}}|{{b}}) 
> So to exclude CJ characters from the LETTER macro:
> {code}
>     LETTER = ! ( ! [:letter:] | {CJ} )
> {code}
>  
> Since [:letter:] includes all of the Korean ranges, there's no reason 
> (AFAICT) to treat them separately; unlike Chinese and Japanese characters, 
> which are individually tokenized, the Korean characters should participate in 
> the same token boundary rules as all of the other letters.
> I looked at some of the differences between Unicode 3.0.0, which Java 1.4.2 
> supports, and Unicode 5.0, the latest version, and there are lots of new and 
> modified letter and digit ranges.  This stuff gets tweaked all the time, and 
> I don't think Lucene should be in the business of trying to track it, or take 
> a position on which Unicode version users' data should conform to.  
> Switching to using JFlex's [:letter:] and [:digit:] predefined character 
> classes ties (most of) these decisions to the user's choice of JVM version, 
> and this seems much more reasonable to me than the current status quo.
> I will attach a patch shortly.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to