RE: JDK 1.1 vs 1.2+

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Matt Tucker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:06 AM > To: 'Lucene Users List' > Subject: RE: JDK 1.1 vs 1.2+ > > > Hey all, > > I'd just like to chime in support for dropping JDK 1.1, > especially if it > would aid i18n in

RE: JDK 1.1 vs 1.2+

Hey all, I'd just like to chime in support for dropping JDK 1.1, especially if it would aid i18n in Lucene. There just doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to build anything for JDK 1.1 anymore. Regards, Matt Jive Software > -Original Message- > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL P

JDK 1.1 vs 1.2+

Hello everyone, I originally posted this question to the developers list, but was asked to repeat it here. I'm working on some new functionality I plan to submit for Lucene. In doing this I've noticed that Lucene currently maintains compatibility with JDK 1.1. This has some disadvantages for i

Boolean Phrase queries with wildcards

Hi All, Does any one know why the following doesn't work? When looking for "spinal cord", ("spi*") AND ("cor*") does not work but (spi*) AND (cor*) works fine. Same with OR and NOT operators as well. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: I want to search on BOTH --> (1) "XML" data and (2) "Text" data.

oh, what stupidity, I'm sorry. I confused some mails! I hope you've done some grinning on this, at least. Chantal Am Montag, 21. Januar 2002 08:36 schrieben Sie: > hello Harun, > > if your often doing searching, maybe you'd like to index all the files. Try > out Lucene (Jakarta Project). It's a

Re: Case Sensitivity - and more

Hi, I have never written anything to the list but in fact, I am doing some development using Lucene. I think that Brian's idea is more flexible and extendable. In my application, I need three or more kinds of analyzers: for counting tfidf statistics, for indexing (compute more, e.g. summaries) an