Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi, For awareness, I would to like to raise a potential issue that we’ve run into when testing Elasticsearch with the latest 9.x branch. A recent change in 9.x [1] has introduced a dependency on hppc 0.9.1. Hppc has added an explicit automatic module name in its manifest, which effectively changes the auto module name from the plain hppc (derived from the jar file name) to com.carrotsearch.hppc. So one must use 0.9.1 ( or 0.9.0 ) if deployed as a module - otherwise the resolution of the `org.apache.lucene.join` module will fail. Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to hppc 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, Ryan has a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The iteration order of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some inadvertent order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to track these down and fix them. I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we have in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? -Chris. [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi Chris, Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to hppc > 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, Ryan has > a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The iteration order > of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some inadvertent > order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to track these > down and fix them. > I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't see a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests (and code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module (with com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier if I renamed it to just 'hppc'? I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we have > in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? > That's why I wasn't entirely sold on having HPPC as the dependency from Lucene when Bruno mentioned it recently - the jar/module hell will surface sooner than later... Maybe it'd be a better idea to just copy what's needed to the core jar and expose those packages to other Lucene modules (so that there is no explicit dependency on HPPC at all)? Bruno copied a lot of those classes already anyway - don't know how much of it is left to copy to drop the dependency. Dawid [1] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/issues/228 [2] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/commit/d569a8944091844c62349646f8eeaf35ebfb5ba6 > > -Chris. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 > [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 > [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 > > [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision > avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and > their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not > affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of > keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will > return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. > If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must > order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
I will not have the time for this today but took a quick look and I think these external dependencies on hppc can be removed after the work Bruno has done to port some of these utility classes to the core. I'd also move the entire Lucene hppc fork under internal and only expose it to other Lucene modules that need it - would have to verify that no class is part of the public API but I don't think it is (in spatial3d and spatial-extras). Dawid On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 10:08 PM Dawid Weiss wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to >> hppc 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, >> Ryan has a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The >> iteration order of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some >> inadvertent order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to >> track these down and fix them. >> > > I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't > see a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests > (and code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be > difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. > > For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module > (with com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier > if I renamed it to just 'hppc'? > > I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we have >> in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? >> > > That's why I wasn't entirely sold on having HPPC as the dependency from > Lucene when Bruno mentioned it recently - the jar/module hell will surface > sooner than later... Maybe it'd be a better idea to just copy what's needed > to the core jar and expose those packages to other Lucene modules (so that > there is no explicit dependency on HPPC at all)? Bruno copied a lot of > those classes already anyway - don't know how much of it is left to copy to > drop the dependency. > > Dawid > > [1] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/issues/228 > [2] > https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/commit/d569a8944091844c62349646f8eeaf35ebfb5ba6 > > >> >> -Chris. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 >> [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 >> [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 >> >> [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision >> avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and >> their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not >> affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of >> keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will >> return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. >> If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must >> order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >>
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
I didn't copy all hppc, the Lucene hppc fork is limited. I know there are some hppc classes used and not in the fork in the facet module, which had the hppc jar dependency since a while ago. So maybe we can keep this dependency? For the new dependencies that I added to the join and spatial modules, maybe we can remove it. But it probably requires adapting in some way to use only the fork. Bruno Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 10:32, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > > I will not have the time for this today but took a quick look and I think > these external dependencies on hppc can be removed after the work Bruno has > done to port some of these utility classes to the core. I'd also move the > entire Lucene hppc fork under internal and only expose it to other Lucene > modules that need it - would have to verify that no class is part of the > public API but I don't think it is (in spatial3d and spatial-extras). > > Dawid > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 10:08 PM Dawid Weiss > wrote: > >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to >>> hppc 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, >>> Ryan has a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The >>> iteration order of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some >>> inadvertent order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to >>> track these down and fix them. >>> >> >> I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't >> see a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests >> (and code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be >> difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. >> >> For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module >> (with com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier >> if I renamed it to just 'hppc'? >> >> I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we >>> have in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? >>> >> >> That's why I wasn't entirely sold on having HPPC as the dependency from >> Lucene when Bruno mentioned it recently - the jar/module hell will surface >> sooner than later... Maybe it'd be a better idea to just copy what's needed >> to the core jar and expose those packages to other Lucene modules (so that >> there is no explicit dependency on HPPC at all)? Bruno copied a lot of >> those classes already anyway - don't know how much of it is left to copy to >> drop the dependency. >> >> Dawid >> >> [1] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/issues/228 >> [2] >> https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/commit/d569a8944091844c62349646f8eeaf35ebfb5ba6 >> >> >>> >>> -Chris. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 >>> [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 >>> [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 >>> >>> [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision >>> avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and >>> their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not >>> affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of >>> keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will >>> return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. >>> If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must >>> order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>>
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi, I was also wondering why parts of hppc were forked/copied to Lucene Core, others not. IMHO it should be consistent. I alaos agree that we should remove the classes completely from the util package (public part of API) and move them to the non-exported packages unter oal.internal. Of course this does not prevent classpath users form using those classes (P.S.: for the SharedSecrets and Vectorization theres stack inspection to prevent invalid callers from using them, but that's not needed for packages here as they cannot bring any risk for code when keeping public). +1 to move the classes and fork everything of HPPC to oal.internal package and only export it to specific modules in the module-info by a specific export (like for test.framework). Uwe Am 26.05.2024 um 10:31 schrieb Dawid Weiss: I will not have the time for this today but took a quick look and I think these external dependencies on hppc can be removed after the work Bruno has done to port some of these utility classes to the core. I'd also move the entire Lucene hppc fork under internal and only expose it to other Lucene modules that need it - would have to verify that no class is part of the public API but I don't think it is (in spatial3d and spatial-extras). Dawid On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 10:08 PM Dawid Weiss wrote: Hi Chris, Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to hppc 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, Ryan has a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The iteration order of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some inadvertent order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to track these down and fix them. I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't see a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests (and code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module (with com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier if I renamed it to just 'hppc'? I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we have in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? That's why I wasn't entirely sold on having HPPC as the dependency from Lucene when Bruno mentioned it recently - the jar/module hell will surface sooner than later... Maybe it'd be a better idea to just copy what's needed to the core jar and expose those packages to other Lucene modules (so that there is no explicit dependency on HPPC at all)? Bruno copied a lot of those classes already anyway - don't know how much of it is left to copy to drop the dependency. Dawid [1] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/issues/228 [2] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/commit/d569a8944091844c62349646f8eeaf35ebfb5ba6 -Chris. [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Uwe Schindler Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen https://www.thetaphi.de eMail:u...@thetaphi.de
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test classes. Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 12:22, Uwe Schindler a écrit : > Hi, > > I was also wondering why parts of hppc were forked/copied to Lucene Core, > others not. IMHO it should be consistent. > > I alaos agree that we should remove the classes completely from the util > package (public part of API) and move them to the non-exported packages > unter oal.internal. Of course this does not prevent classpath users form > using those classes (P.S.: for the SharedSecrets and Vectorization theres > stack inspection to prevent invalid callers from using them, but that's not > needed for packages here as they cannot bring any risk for code when > keeping public). > > +1 to move the classes and fork everything of HPPC to oal.internal package > and only export it to specific modules in the module-info by a specific > export (like for test.framework). > > Uwe > Am 26.05.2024 um 10:31 schrieb Dawid Weiss: > > > I will not have the time for this today but took a quick look and I think > these external dependencies on hppc can be removed after the work Bruno has > done to port some of these utility classes to the core. I'd also move the > entire Lucene hppc fork under internal and only expose it to other Lucene > modules that need it - would have to verify that no class is part of the > public API but I don't think it is (in spatial3d and spatial-extras). > > Dawid > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 10:08 PM Dawid Weiss > wrote: > >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> Since Elasticsearch is deployed as a module, then we need to update to >>> hppc 0.9.1 [2], but unfortunately this is not straightforward. In fact, >>> Ryan has a PR open [3] for the past 2 years without completion! The >>> iteration order of some collection types in hppc 0.9.x [*] is tickling some >>> inadvertent order dependencies in Elasticsearch. It may take some time to >>> track these down and fix them. >>> >> >> I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't >> see a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests >> (and code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be >> difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. >> >> For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module >> (with com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier >> if I renamed it to just 'hppc'? >> >> I wonder if others may run into either or both of these issues, as we >>> have in Elasticsearch, if we release 9.11 with this change? >>> >> >> That's why I wasn't entirely sold on having HPPC as the dependency from >> Lucene when Bruno mentioned it recently - the jar/module hell will surface >> sooner than later... Maybe it'd be a better idea to just copy what's needed >> to the core jar and expose those packages to other Lucene modules (so that >> there is no explicit dependency on HPPC at all)? Bruno copied a lot of >> those classes already anyway - don't know how much of it is left to copy to >> drop the dependency. >> >> Dawid >> >> [1] https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/issues/228 >> [2] >> https://github.com/carrotsearch/hppc/commit/d569a8944091844c62349646f8eeaf35ebfb5ba6 >> >> >>> >>> -Chris. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13392 >>> [2] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/109006 >>> [3] https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/pull/84168 >>> >>> [*] HPPC-186: A different strategy has been implemented for collision >>> avalanche avoidance. This results in removal of Scatter* maps and sets and >>> their unification with their Hash* counterparts. This change should not >>> affect any existing code unless it relied on static, specific ordering of >>> keys. A side effect of this change is that key/value enumerators will >>> return a different ordering of their container's values on each invocation. >>> If your code relies on the order of values in associative arrays, it must >>> order them after they are retrieved. (Bruno Roustant). >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>> -- > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremenhttps://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi David, > On 25 May 2024, at 21:08, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > ... > > I understand it's a pain if the order changes from run to run but I don't see > a way this can be avoided ([1] is the issue you mentioned on gh). Tests (and > code) shouldn't rely on map/set ordering, although I realize it may be > difficult to weed out in such a large codebase. To be clear, I agree, the bug is in the Elasticsearch code - it should not depend upon iteration order of these collection types. And yes, it’s difficult to weed out and fix, which we’ll continue to work on. > For what it's worth, the next version of HPPC will be a proper module (with > com.carrotsearch.hppc id). Would it change anything/ make it easier if I > renamed it to just 'hppc'? Moving to an explicit module with a module-info sounds good. The name, com.carrotsearch.hppc, is a fine name for this. No need to revert to the automatic module name. -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi Bruno, Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test > classes. > Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. > I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? > My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a look tomorrow, had a busy day today. > +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. > Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the module system. D.
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. Do we agree that we should - Increase the fork size - Move it to oal.internal - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere I can send a PR for this soon. Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with find . -type f | wc -l in hppc/build/generated/main Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > > Hi Bruno, > > Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test >> classes. >> Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. >> I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? >> > > My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a look > tomorrow, had a busy day today. > > >> +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. >> > > Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the > module system. > > D. > >
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
> > If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we > can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. > Do we agree that we should > - Increase the fork size > - Move it to oal.internal > - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere > Yes, I think it's the safest way to go and it's also the cleanest - keeps the implementation details private and doesn't clash with anything out there. Dropping an existing dependency shouldn't be a problem, I think. > Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with > find . -type f | wc -l > in hppc/build/generated/main > Oh, ok. Many of these are a bit esoteric (even though we don't generate all combinations). Taking what's needed sounds reasonable to me - and it shouldn't be that much, really. D. > > Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > >> >> Hi Bruno, >> >> Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test >>> classes. >>> Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. >>> I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? >>> >> >> My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a look >> tomorrow, had a busy day today. >> >> >>> +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. >>> >> >> Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the >> module system. >> >> D. >> >>
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
What is the cost of maintaining the fork? I don’t feel it’s fair to you Dawid, if we were to expect you to port over any changes made to hppc upstream. Mike On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:59 PM Dawid Weiss wrote: > If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we >> can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. >> Do we agree that we should >> - Increase the fork size >> - Move it to oal.internal >> - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere >> > > Yes, I think it's the safest way to go and it's also the cleanest - keeps > the implementation details private and doesn't clash with anything out > there. Dropping an existing dependency shouldn't be a problem, I think. > > >> Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with >> find . -type f | wc -l >> in hppc/build/generated/main >> > > Oh, ok. Many of these are a bit esoteric (even though we don't generate > all combinations). Taking what's needed sounds reasonable to me - and it > shouldn't be that much, really. > > D. > > >> >> Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> Hi Bruno, >>> >>> Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test classes. Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? >>> >>> My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a look >>> tomorrow, had a busy day today. >>> >>> +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. >>> >>> Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the >>> module system. >>> >>> D. >>> >>>
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi Mike, These changes are rare, really. Bruno made most of them recently and the core has been unchanged for quite some time now. The same goes for fastutil, koloboke and other libraries. I don't think it's a problem and I think it's more than fine to poach what's needed if it makes people's lives easier downstream. I'll try to do this today and provide a patch. Dawid On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 1:53 AM Mike Drob wrote: > What is the cost of maintaining the fork? I don’t feel it’s fair to you > Dawid, if we were to expect you to port over any changes made to hppc > upstream. > > Mike > > On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:59 PM Dawid Weiss wrote: > >> If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we >>> can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. >>> Do we agree that we should >>> - Increase the fork size >>> - Move it to oal.internal >>> - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere >>> >> >> Yes, I think it's the safest way to go and it's also the cleanest - keeps >> the implementation details private and doesn't clash with anything out >> there. Dropping an existing dependency shouldn't be a problem, I think. >> >> >>> Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with >>> find . -type f | wc -l >>> in hppc/build/generated/main >>> >> >> Oh, ok. Many of these are a bit esoteric (even though we don't generate >> all combinations). Taking what's needed sounds reasonable to me - and it >> shouldn't be that much, really. >> >> D. >> >> >>> >>> Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a >>> écrit : >>> Hi Bruno, Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test > classes. > Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test > classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? > My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a look tomorrow, had a busy day today. > +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. > Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the module system. D.
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Ah, I started to work on this. So I just sent an incomplete PR[1] to share with you Dawid, so you don't do the work twice. Feel free to modify the PR if needed. [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13422 Le lun. 27 mai 2024 à 08:40, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > > Hi Mike, > > These changes are rare, really. Bruno made most of them recently and the > core has been unchanged for quite some time now. The same goes for > fastutil, koloboke and other libraries. I don't think it's a problem and I > think it's more than fine to poach what's needed if it makes > people's lives easier downstream. I'll try to do this today and provide a > patch. > > Dawid > > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 1:53 AM Mike Drob wrote: > >> What is the cost of maintaining the fork? I don’t feel it’s fair to you >> Dawid, if we were to expect you to port over any changes made to hppc >> upstream. >> >> Mike >> >> On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:59 PM Dawid Weiss >> wrote: >> >>> If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. Do we agree that we should - Increase the fork size - Move it to oal.internal - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere >>> >>> Yes, I think it's the safest way to go and it's also the cleanest - >>> keeps the implementation details private and doesn't clash with anything >>> out there. Dropping an existing dependency shouldn't be a problem, I think. >>> >>> Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with find . -type f | wc -l in hppc/build/generated/main >>> >>> Oh, ok. Many of these are a bit esoteric (even though we don't generate >>> all combinations). Taking what's needed sounds reasonable to me - and it >>> shouldn't be that much, really. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > > Hi Bruno, > > Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test >> classes. >> Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test >> classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? >> > > My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a > look tomorrow, had a busy day today. > > >> +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. >> > > Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for the > module system. > > D. > >
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Thanks Bruno - didn't want to step in the way but I can work on the PR now (is this fine)? D. On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 9:03 AM Bruno Roustant wrote: > Ah, I started to work on this. So I just sent an incomplete PR[1] to share > with you Dawid, so you don't do the work twice. Feel free to modify the PR > if needed. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13422 > > Le lun. 27 mai 2024 à 08:40, Dawid Weiss a écrit : > >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> These changes are rare, really. Bruno made most of them recently and the >> core has been unchanged for quite some time now. The same goes for >> fastutil, koloboke and other libraries. I don't think it's a problem and I >> think it's more than fine to poach what's needed if it makes >> people's lives easier downstream. I'll try to do this today and provide a >> patch. >> >> Dawid >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 1:53 AM Mike Drob wrote: >> >>> What is the cost of maintaining the fork? I don’t feel it’s fair to you >>> Dawid, if we were to expect you to port over any changes made to hppc >>> upstream. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 3:59 PM Dawid Weiss >>> wrote: >>> If we increase the hppc fork to 23 classes and 14 test classes, then we > can remove the hppc dependency from all modules. > Do we agree that we should > - Increase the fork size > - Move it to oal.internal > - Remove the hppc dependency from everywhere > Yes, I think it's the safest way to go and it's also the cleanest - keeps the implementation details private and doesn't clash with anything out there. Dropping an existing dependency shouldn't be a problem, I think. > Dawid, for the size of hppc, I counted the number of files with > find . -type f | wc -l > in hppc/build/generated/main > Oh, ok. Many of these are a bit esoteric (even though we don't generate all combinations). Taking what's needed sounds reasonable to me - and it shouldn't be that much, really. D. > > Le dim. 26 mai 2024 à 21:52, Dawid Weiss a > écrit : > >> >> Hi Bruno, >> >> Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 >>> test classes. >>> Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test >>> classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? >>> >> >> My superficial analysis hinted at far fewer classes but I'll take a >> look tomorrow, had a busy day today. >> >> >>> +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. >>> >> >> Yes, I think it's a good idea to move it and hide it, at least for >> the module system. >> >> D. >> >>
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
Hi, > +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. +1 > On 26 May 2024, at 13:33, Bruno Roustant wrote: > > Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test > classes. > Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. I'm > not sure we want to fork all hppc? That sounds like quite a lot of classes. How much is actually necessary to allow to remove the dependency? And/Or is there a place of natural place where it makes logical sense to subset? -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
> On 27 May 2024, at 09:08, Chris Hegarty > wrote: > >> ... > > That sounds like quite a lot of classes. How much is actually necessary to > allow to remove the dependency? And/Or is there a place of natural place > where it makes logical sense to subset? Please ignore this comment. I see that such is already progressing. -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
Re: Q: 9.x upgrade to hppc 0.9.1
See the PR, a subset is enough. The problem with all classes comes from the fact that HPPC uses a template mechanism (like NIO Buffer classes in JDK) to generate the source code for all those combinations. We need to only fork all classes we use. Actually we do not fork classes part of the HPPC repository, we fork the output of the autogenerated code. If we want to fork everything, I think we may need to better fork the template engine and the templates :-) Uwe Am 27.05.2024 um 10:08 schrieb Chris Hegarty: Hi, +1 to moving the hppc fork to oal.internal. +1 On 26 May 2024, at 13:33, Bruno Roustant wrote: Currently the hppc fork in Lucene is composed of 15 classes and 8 test classes. Forking everything in hppc would mean 525 classes and 193 test classes. I'm not sure we want to fork all hppc? That sounds like quite a lot of classes. How much is actually necessary to allow to remove the dependency? And/Or is there a place of natural place where it makes logical sense to subset? -Chris. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org -- Uwe Schindler Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen https://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
