You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by Daniel Naber <lu...@danielnaber.de> on 2005/11/08 23:28:03 UTC
compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Hi,
I added this to our CHANGES file:
Note that this realease is mostly but not 100% source compatible with the
latest release of Lucene (1.4.3). In other words, you should make sure
your application compiles with this version of Lucene before you replace
the old Lucene JAR with the new one.
This refers to the fact that for example some methods in Query now throw an
IOException that didn't throw this exception before. Everyone feel free to
modify this warning, as I'm not sure if it's worded correctly.
Regards
Daniel
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Otis Gospodnetic <ot...@yahoo.com>.
> > If not, then our next release version should just be 2.0 and skip
> > 1.9, don't ya think?
As other said - we want 1.9 + 2.0 so we can clean up deprecated stuff.
> FWIW... One reason I haven't been persistent or hurried about the
> UTF-8-clean/speedup patches is because they aren't backwards
> compatible, and thus should not be considered prior to a 1.9
> release. The other is that I suspect that given sufficient effort,
> byte-count Lucene strings will win out over char-chount Lucene
> strings -- we'll know after I tinker with the merge process and
> submit a diff. Again, I haven't been rushing -- I'm finishing up the
>
> Perl/C port of the org.apache.lucene.index package to familiarize
> myself with all the nooks and crannies first.
>
> If you go directly to 2.0, when will the next opportunity be to
> introduce a backwards-compatibility-killing index format change?
I think 2.1 or 2 is a fair game.
I believe 1.4.3 -> 1.9 indices are compatible. Just scanned
CHANGES.txt for index incompatibility notes the other day and didn't
find any.
Otis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Nov 9, 2005, at 6:19 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> If not, then our next release version should just be 2.0 and skip
> 1.9, don't ya think?
FWIW... One reason I haven't been persistent or hurried about the
UTF-8-clean/speedup patches is because they aren't backwards
compatible, and thus should not be considered prior to a 1.9
release. The other is that I suspect that given sufficient effort,
byte-count Lucene strings will win out over char-chount Lucene
strings -- we'll know after I tinker with the merge process and
submit a diff. Again, I haven't been rushing -- I'm finishing up the
Perl/C port of the org.apache.lucene.index package to familiarize
myself with all the nooks and crannies first.
If you go directly to 2.0, when will the next opportunity be to
introduce a backwards-compatibility-killing index format change?
Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
I think the intention has been to be as backward compatible as
possible with 1.9, and that's why there should still be a 1.9 and 2.0
(removing all the deprecated stuff will break tons of things). Patch
releases should strive to be a 100% drop in replacement, but that's
not a realistic requirement for major releases. The simplest example
is adding a new method to a public interface... you need to do it
sometimes, but it breaks compatibility.
As far as 1.9 goes, most apps should be fine... but I don't think we
can advertise it as 100% just because changes were confined to expert
level stuff (and what constitutes expert level is kind of subjective
in any case).
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
On 11/9/05, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Expert level changes are understandable. But I'm more concerned
> about folks wanting to simply drop in the 1.9 JAR into an existing
> application without recompilation. Where do we break this? And is
> there no way to get to binary level compatibility? If not, then our
> next release version should just be 2.0 and skip 1.9, don't ya think?
>
> Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Expert level changes are understandable. But I'm more concerned
about folks wanting to simply drop in the 1.9 JAR into an existing
application without recompilation. Where do we break this? And is
there no way to get to binary level compatibility? If not, then our
next release version should just be 2.0 and skip 1.9, don't ya think?
Erik
On 8 Nov 2005, at 22:28, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> It's almost impossible to maintain 100% compatibility... I think the
> current level of compatibility is pretty good.
>
> I ran into a couple of minor things myself when upgrading to Lucene
> 1.9:
> - writeLogTimeout and commitLockTimeout are now final, so they can't
> be changed.
> - I have a class that extends Searcher, and there were new methods
> added to Searchable which means I had to implement those new method
> before my class would compile.
>
> This is expert level stuff, the needed changes took me 10 minutes, and
> one one should deploy a new version without thorough testing anyway
> (it's a years worth of changes, after all).
>
>
> -Yonik
> Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
>
> On 11/8/05, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Thanks for clarify it, sorry for asking before I got to your
>> explanation. Are there other known incompatibilities?
>>
>> Erik
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
It's almost impossible to maintain 100% compatibility... I think the
current level of compatibility is pretty good.
I ran into a couple of minor things myself when upgrading to Lucene 1.9:
- writeLogTimeout and commitLockTimeout are now final, so they can't
be changed.
- I have a class that extends Searcher, and there were new methods
added to Searchable which means I had to implement those new method
before my class would compile.
This is expert level stuff, the needed changes took me 10 minutes, and
one one should deploy a new version without thorough testing anyway
(it's a years worth of changes, after all).
-Yonik
Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706
On 11/8/05, Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Thanks for clarify it, sorry for asking before I got to your
> explanation. Are there other known incompatibilities?
>
> Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: compatibility of Lucene 1.9
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Daniel,
Thanks for clarify it, sorry for asking before I got to your
explanation. Are there other known incompatibilities?
Erik
On 8 Nov 2005, at 17:28, Daniel Naber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I added this to our CHANGES file:
>
> Note that this realease is mostly but not 100% source compatible
> with the
> latest release of Lucene (1.4.3). In other words, you should make sure
> your application compiles with this version of Lucene before you
> replace
> the old Lucene JAR with the new one.
>
> This refers to the fact that for example some methods in Query now
> throw an
> IOException that didn't throw this exception before. Everyone feel
> free to
> modify this warning, as I'm not sure if it's worded correctly.
>
> Regards
> Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.danielnaber.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org