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
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,
will only go into
3.x.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
_
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Why release 3.0?
One
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
*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
-
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
...@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
://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
-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
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org mailto: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
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
://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
Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:37 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
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
]
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
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
_
From: Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
right, my point is its true its nothing to do with Lucene at all, really.
but the reality
Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
--
*From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
right, my point is its true its nothing to do
--
*From:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:45 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
right, my point is its true its nothing to do with Lucene at all, really.
but the reality is we
Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
Uwe, thats probably a good solution I think. just as long as we document
somewhere,
I think there is some warning verbage in StandardTokenizer already about
-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
btw, so heres a great example. you are backwards broken regardless of JVM
for StandardTokenizer, because we used 1.4 JRE to run jflex in 2.9, but 1.5
in 3.0, right?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Uwe
:* Robert Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:53 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
btw, so heres a great example. you are backwards broken regardless of JVM
for StandardTokenizer, because we used 1.4 JRE to run jflex in 2.9
...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Why release 3.0?
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
--
*From:* Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 7:10 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Why release 3.0?
One of my specialties is asking obvious questions just to see if
everyone's assumptions
are aligned. So
Java 1.4 can be seen by trying out.
-
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 9:06 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0
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
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:13 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
Oops, stupid mouse made me send a blank message.
Ok, I withdraw the question since there *are* good reasons to put
3.0 in a prod environment G. It's also an easier thing to say new
:* Re: Why release 3.0?
btw, so heres a great example. you are backwards broken regardless
of JVM for StandardTokenizer, because we used 1.4 JRE to run jflex
in 2.9, but 1.5 in 3.0, right?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
mailto:rcm
.-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 9:15 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
Steven, I think we can be almost sure of no latin-1
Muir [mailto:rcm...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
*To:* java-dev@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
Uwe, thats probably a good solution I think. just as long as we
document somewhere,
I think there is some warning verbage in StandardTokenizer already
.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:21 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
Good point - and that likely means
@lucene.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Why release 3.0?
btw, so heres a great example. you are backwards broken regardless
of JVM for StandardTokenizer, because we used 1.4 JRE to run jflex
in 2.9, but 1.5 in 3.0, right?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com
:21 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
Good point - and that likely means the current warning is not working -
what can we do to improve it?
Perhaps a new text file called jflexregen or something, and it
specifically says you must use java 1.5?
Uwe Schindler
://www.pangaea.de/
E-mail: uschind...@pangaea.de
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:30 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
And what happens when someone regenerates it with 1.6 without knowing
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
And what happens when someone regenerates it with 1.6 without knowing?
Uwe Schindler wrote:
I check this by generating the file with 1.4 and 1.5. The 1.4 version
will
not change anymore, so we just leave the java file
[mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com
mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:30 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org mailto:java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
And what happens when someone regenerates it with 1.6 without
knowing
9:45 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why release 3.0?
I still reccomend we add a file then HowToRegenJflex.txt or something -
that specifically says to use 1.5 or 1.6. I don't changing the current
notice/warning is visible enough to ensure someone doesn't break this.
Robert
to java-dev users.
-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de]
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 9:59 PM
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Why release 3.0
On Nov 16, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
DM, in this case I'm not referring to surrogates, etc, but instead the idea
that properties for an existing character can change (the soft hyphen and
arabic ayah were two examples), also new characters are introduced.
these will affect what
Is core lucene really affected by the change? Or is it only contrib? I
mean, if we couldn't create an index using core with surrogate pairs and
other Unicode 4.0 stuff (though I'm not clear on the changes), how can it
change reading/searching the index?
Sure, especially core analyzers like
right, the only way you could really contain it would be to do something
like that.
I just think we should make users aware of this, thats all.
and I think it sucks they might have to reindex twice with the current
status of things (we did not complete unicode 4 support in lucene 3.0)
which is
On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
right, the only way you could really contain it would be to do something like
that.
I'm looking forward to your ICU analyzer! IMHO, it be great to have it be a
pluggable replacement for it's counterparts in core. That is, using reflection,
if
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:17 PM, DM Smith dmsmith...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks DM, I hope to work on it more soon...
I've been reading the thread and at first my response was. No big deal, it
won't affect me (i.e. awareness of the problem). And now my thought is I'm
hosed (i.e.
well, in all honesty there is a bit of complexity.
i leave the StandardTokenizer out of this, it gives the same results
regardless of JVM version.
it may not be correct, but its consistent, we could wait till 5.0 or 10.0 to
make it correct :)
Also, because it gives the same results regardless of
So whats your best recommendation? Ignoring the difficulty and just
considering whats best for users?
Robert Muir wrote:
well, in all honesty there is a bit of complexity.
i leave the StandardTokenizer out of this, it gives the same results
regardless of JVM version.
it may not be correct,
completely ignoring the difficulty, I would propose to fix everything to
correspond with the java 1.5 unicode version, for consistency.
I would exempt StandardTokenizer, because its completely inside our control.
we can fix it at our leisure.
for the rest of this stuff, its already a 'change in
actually i thought about this. i change my story.
deprecating anything is stupid, because its still not back compatible, i.e.
Character.isLetter(char) even returns different results now, even if we
invoke it.
hard break is the only solution.
we should have done this deprecation in 2.9, but its
That's an amazing number of changes, even when you ignore name changes.
DM, for your reference, I created another diff from 4.0-5.1, showing what
will happen with JDK7 here: http://people.apache.org/~rmuir/unicodeDiff2.txt
the problem is that as a search engine library, lucene cares about
46 matches
Mail list logo
