lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion to ParallelReader
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:04:21 GMT
I agree and completely understand Chuck.  I'm waiting for my employer to sign and fax the CCLA
for some search benchmarking code I wrote, and it uses Java 1.5 stuff.   It would only be
a contrib piece, not core, so it's less of a problem, but...

Grant: how to poll users?  How about this: ?  If you
think that's ok, we can send that to java-user tomorrow and see.  Hey, how about some bets?
 I'll put a $10 for a beer on 1.5.


----- Original Message ----
From: Grant Ingersoll <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:01:30 PM
Subject: Re: Java 1.5 was [jira] Updated: (LUCENE-600) ParallelWriter companion to ParallelReader

> In addition to performance, productivity and functionality benefits, my
> main argument for 1.5 is that it is used by the vast majority of lucene
> community members.  

I am not so sure about this. Perhaps we should take a poll on the user 
list?  Not even sure how that would be managed or counted, but...

> Everything I write is in 1.5 and I don't have time
> to backport.  I have a significant body of code from which to extract
> and contribute patches that others would likely find useful.  How many
> others are in a similar position?
I definitely would prefer to make future contributions in 1.5 (even the 
patch we just contributed (issue 545) could have been better given 1.5, 
but it is fine with 1.4 as well).  I tend to think if people don't want 
the new functionality or if it breaks their app. then they need not 
upgrade, or they can contribute patches against the branches for prior 
releases and we can support that as needed.   To me, this is what major 
releases are about.  I know that when a major release comes out that I 
should expect library changes that may break my code.  If I don't want 
that pain, then I don't upgrade.
> On the side, not leaving valued community members behind is important.
> I think the pmc / committers just need to make a decision which will
> impact one group or the other.
> Chuck
> Grant Ingersoll wrote on 06/13/2006 03:35 AM:
>> Well, we have our first Java 1.5 patch...  Now that we have had a week
>> or two to digest the comments, do we want to reopen the discussion?
>> Chuck Williams (JIRA) wrote:
>>>      [ ]
>>> Chuck Williams updated LUCENE-600:
>>> ----------------------------------
>>>     Attachment: ParallelWriter.patch
>>> Patch to create and integrate ParallelWriter, Writable and
>>> TestParallelWriter -- also modifies build to use java 1.5.
>>>> ParallelWriter companion to ParallelReader
>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>          Key: LUCENE-600
>>>>          URL:
>>>>      Project: Lucene - Java
>>>>         Type: Improvement
>>>>   Components: Index
>>>>     Versions: 2.1
>>>>     Reporter: Chuck Williams
>>>>  Attachments: ParallelWriter.patch
>>>> A new class ParallelWriter is provided that serves as a companion to
>>>> ParallelReader.  ParallelWriter meets all of the doc-id
>>>> synchronization requirements of ParallelReader, subject to:
>>>>     1.  ParallelWriter.addDocument() is synchronized, which might
>>>> have an adverse effect on performance.  The writes to the
>>>> sub-indexes are, however, done in parallel.
>>>>     2.  The application must ensure that the ParallelReader is never
>>>> reopened inside ParallelWriter.addDocument(), else it might find the
>>>> sub-indexes out of sync.
>>>>     3.  The application must deal with recovery from
>>>> ParallelWriter.addDocument() exceptions.  Recovery must restore the
>>>> synchronization of doc-ids, e.g. by deleting any trailing
>>>> document(s) in one sub-index that were not successfully added to all
>>>> sub-indexes, and then optimizing all sub-indexes.
>>>> A new interface, Writable, is provided to abstract IndexWriter and
>>>> ParallelWriter.  This is in the same spirit as the existing
>>>> Searchable and Fieldable classes.
>>>> This implementation uses java 1.5.  The patch applies against
>>>> today's svn head.  All tests pass, including the new
>>>> TestParallelWriter.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:


Grant Ingersoll 
Sr. Software Engineer 
Center for Natural Language Processing 
Syracuse University 
School of Information Studies 
335 Hinds Hall 
Syracuse, NY 13244 
Voice:  315-443-5484 
Fax: 315-443-6886 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message