right, its nothing to do with lucene, instead due to property changes, etc.
i just think we should inform users on java 1.4/2.9 that if they upgrade to java 1.5/3.0, they should reindex. the reason i say this about properties, is there are some that change that will affect tokenizers, i give two examples, a hyphen that changes from punctuation to format (might affect SolrWordDelimiterFilter), and arabic ayah which changes from NSM to format, which surely affects ArabicLetterTokenizer. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I agree that the Unicode version supported by the JVM, as you say, really > has nothing to do with Lucene. > > The disruption here is users' upgrading from Java 1.4 to 1.5+, not when > they upgrade Lucene. I'd guess with few exceptions that most people have > been using Lucene with 1.5+ for a couple of years now, though. > > But even the upgrade from Java 1.4 to 1.5+ will have (had) zero impact on > most Lucene users, assuming that most use Latin-1 exclusively; although I > haven't looked, I'd be surprised if Latin-1 characters changed much, if at > all, from Unicode 3.0 to 4.0. > > It would be useful, I think, to include (a pointer to?) a description of > the details of the Unicode 3.0->4.0 differences in the Lucene 3.0 release > notes, since the minimum required Java version, and so also the supported > Unicode version, changes then. > > Steve > > On 11/16/2009 at 2:15 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > the problem is that the properties have changed for various characters, > > and new characters were added. > > > > it really has nothing to do with lucene, but the idea you can go from > > jdk 1.4/lucene 2.9 to jdk 1.5/lucene3.0 without reindexing is not true. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> wrote: > > > > > > But an UTF-8 stream from Java 4 can still be read with Java 5, > > what is the problem? Java 5 extended Unicode support, but an index > > created with older versions can still be read. UTF-8 is standardized… > > > > > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:09 PM > > > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > > > > > > > > uwe, on topic please read my comment on LUCENE-1689, because > > unicode version was bumped in jdk 1.5, i believe this index backwards > > compatibility is only theoretical > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Uwe Schindler <u...@thetaphi.de> > wrote: > > > > 2.9 has *not* the same format as 3.0, an index created with 3.0 > > cannot be read with 2.9. This is because compressed field support was > > removed and therefore the version number of the stored fields file was > > upgraded. But indexes from 2.9 can be read with 3.0 and support may get > > removed in 4.0. 3.0 Indexes can be read until version 4.9. > > > > > > > > Uwe > > > > ----- > > Uwe Schindler > > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > > http://www.thetaphi.de > > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:15 PM > > > > > > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: Why release 3.0? > > > > > > > > Don't users need to upgrade to 3.0 because 3.1 won't be > > necessarily able to read your > > 2.4 index file formats? I suppose if you've already upgraded to > > 2.9, then all is well because > > 2.9 is the same format as 3.0, but we can't assume all users > > upgraded from 2.4 to 2.9. > > > > If you've done that already, then 3.0 might not be necessary, > > but if you're on 2.4 right now, > > you will be in for a bad surprise if you try to upgrade to 3.1. > > > > -jake > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Erick Erickson > > <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > One of my "specialties" is asking obvious questions just to see > > if everyone's assumptions are aligned. So with the discussion about > > branching 3.0 I have to ask "Is there going to be any 3.0 release > > intended for *production*?". And if not, would we save a lot of > > work by just not worrying about retrofitting fixes to a 3.0 branch > > and carrying on with 3.1 as the first *supported* 3.x release? > > > > Since 3.0 is "upgrade-to-java5 and remove deprecations", I'm not > > sure *as a user* I see a good reason to upgrade to 3.0. Getting a > > "beta/snapshot" release to get a head start on cleaning up my code > > does seem worthwhile, if I have the spare time. And having a base > > 3.0 version that's not changing all over the place would be useful > > for that. > > > > That said, I'm also not terribly comfortable with a "release" > > that's out there and unsupported. > > > > Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I don't > > remember it. Although my memory isn't what it used to be (but > > some would claim it never was<G>)... > > > > Erick > > -- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
