You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@tika.apache.org by "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com> on 2014/09/02 21:44:43 UTC
Tika versions compatibility
I am looking for
Information on Tika compatibility as version releases have been made. We are still on a old version of Tika 0.6. We would like to upgrade to the latest released version 1.5 and prepare for 1.6 as well.
Is there any information I have not found googling around and searching the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current 1.5 version that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
We are also still using Lucene 2.9.2 with it (albeit we are upgrading to 4.9 in the next while)
David Baldwin
RE: Tika versions compatibility
Posted by Ken Krugler <kk...@transpac.com>.
> From: Baldwin, David
> Sent: September 2, 2014 5:39:17pm PDT
> To: user@tika.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Tika versions compatibility
>
> Did you mean a different version number of Lucene other than 4.1? i.e. the lucene.apache.org says 4.9 came out on 25 June 2014
Uwe said 4.10, not 4.1
-- Ken
> From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 5:18 PM
> To: user@tika.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Tika versions compatibility
>
> Hi,
>
> Lucene itsself has no link to Tika at all, the APIs have no overlap. Apache Solr, which is based on Lucene, uses Tika, but that is bundled and optional.
>
> FYI, Lucene 4.10 comes out today...
>
> Uwe
>
> Am 3. September 2014 00:14:50 MESZ, schrieb "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com>:
> Thanks,
>
> Given that we are using Lucene 2.9.2, I will try it but we are not looking to recompile or change it. Rather, after upgrading Tika, we hope to upgrade to Lucene 4.9 (or latest) which I assume has been built against the latest Tika, correct?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Burch [mailto:apache@gagravarr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:37 PM
> To: user@tika.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tika versions compatibility
>
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Baldwin, David wrote:
> Is there any information I have not found googling around and
> searching the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current
> 1.5 version that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
>
> We've strived to maintain backwards compatibility, so you ought to be fine upgrading.
> It would be generally suggested to fix anything that is marked as deprecated when compiling against the latest version, but I think you should be fine.
>
> (If upgrading from 1.0 then anything in 1.x should be fine to upgrade to, and I believe we have backwards-incompatible checking taking place on builds. 0.6 is older, but largely ought to be fine as well)
>
> The main think you should notice is the greatly increased number of file formats supported
>
> Nick
>
> --
> Uwe Schindler
> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
RE: Tika versions compatibility
Posted by "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com>.
Did you mean a different version number of Lucene other than 4.1? i.e. the lucene.apache.org says 4.9 came out on 25 June 2014
From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:uwe@thetaphi.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 5:18 PM
To: user@tika.apache.org
Subject: RE: Tika versions compatibility
Hi,
Lucene itsself has no link to Tika at all, the APIs have no overlap. Apache Solr, which is based on Lucene, uses Tika, but that is bundled and optional.
FYI, Lucene 4.10 comes out today...
Uwe
Am 3. September 2014 00:14:50 MESZ, schrieb "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com>>:
Thanks,
Given that we are using Lucene 2.9.2, I will try it but we are not looking to recompile or change it. Rather, after upgrading Tika, we hope to upgrade to Lucene 4.9 (or latest) which I assume has been built against the latest Tika, correct?
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Burch [mailto:apache@gagravarr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:37 PM
To: user@tika.apache.org<ma...@tika.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Tika versions compatibility
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Baldwin, David wrote:
Is there any information I have not found googling around and
searching the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current
1.5 version that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
We've strived to maintain backwards compatibility, so you ought to be fine upgrading.
It would be generally suggested to fix anything that is marked as deprecated when compiling against the latest version, but I think you should be fine.
(If upgrading from 1.0 then anything in 1.x should be fine to upgrade to, and I believe we have backwards-incompatible checking taking place on builds. 0.6 is older, but largely ought to be fine as well)
The main think you should notice is the greatly increased number of file formats supported
Nick
--
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
RE: Tika versions compatibility
Posted by Uwe Schindler <uw...@thetaphi.de>.
Hi,
Lucene itsself has no link to Tika at all, the APIs have no overlap. Apache Solr, which is based on Lucene, uses Tika, but that is bundled and optional.
FYI, Lucene 4.10 comes out today...
Uwe
Am 3. September 2014 00:14:50 MESZ, schrieb "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com>:
>Thanks,
>
>Given that we are using Lucene 2.9.2, I will try it but we are not
>looking to recompile or change it. Rather, after upgrading Tika, we
>hope to upgrade to Lucene 4.9 (or latest) which I assume has been built
>against the latest Tika, correct?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Burch [mailto:apache@gagravarr.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:37 PM
>To: user@tika.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Tika versions compatibility
>
>On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Baldwin, David wrote:
>> Is there any information I have not found googling around and
>> searching the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current
>> 1.5 version that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
>
>We've strived to maintain backwards compatibility, so you ought to be
>fine upgrading. It would be generally suggested to fix anything that is
>marked as deprecated when compiling against the latest version, but I
>think you should be fine.
>
>(If upgrading from 1.0 then anything in 1.x should be fine to upgrade
>to, and I believe we have backwards-incompatible checking taking place
>on builds. 0.6 is older, but largely ought to be fine as well)
>
>The main think you should notice is the greatly increased number of
>file formats supported
>
>Nick
--
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
RE: Tika versions compatibility
Posted by "Baldwin, David" <Da...@bmc.com>.
Thanks,
Given that we are using Lucene 2.9.2, I will try it but we are not looking to recompile or change it. Rather, after upgrading Tika, we hope to upgrade to Lucene 4.9 (or latest) which I assume has been built against the latest Tika, correct?
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Burch [mailto:apache@gagravarr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:37 PM
To: user@tika.apache.org
Subject: Re: Tika versions compatibility
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Baldwin, David wrote:
> Is there any information I have not found googling around and
> searching the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current
> 1.5 version that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
We've strived to maintain backwards compatibility, so you ought to be fine upgrading. It would be generally suggested to fix anything that is marked as deprecated when compiling against the latest version, but I think you should be fine.
(If upgrading from 1.0 then anything in 1.x should be fine to upgrade to, and I believe we have backwards-incompatible checking taking place on builds. 0.6 is older, but largely ought to be fine as well)
The main think you should notice is the greatly increased number of file formats supported
Nick
Re: Tika versions compatibility
Posted by Nick Burch <ap...@gagravarr.org>.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Baldwin, David wrote:
> Is there any information I have not found googling around and searching
> the page that may show any changes from 0.6 to the current 1.5 version
> that may make it incompatible on the API/Usage level?
We've strived to maintain backwards compatibility, so you ought to be fine
upgrading. It would be generally suggested to fix anything that is marked
as deprecated when compiling against the latest version, but I think you
should be fine.
(If upgrading from 1.0 then anything in 1.x should be fine to upgrade to,
and I believe we have backwards-incompatible checking taking place on
builds. 0.6 is older, but largely ought to be fine as well)
The main think you should notice is the greatly increased number of file
formats supported
Nick