lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eyal Post" <eyalp...@epocalipse.com>
Subject RE: Compression Implementation
Date Mon, 15 May 2006 20:23:52 GMT
I'm on it. 
Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better. 

Eyal 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net] 
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 
> otherwise 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java 
> based index.  Beside, doing reflection to provide a plug-in 
> solution to a 3rd party compression isn't hard.
> 
> Eyal already asked if he can work on this part.  I said yes 
> but I have not heard back from him yet.
> 
> Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are 
> taking on this task or not.  Thanks!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- George Aroush
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> 
> Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up 
> a bigger conversation.
> 
> While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection 
> process into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already 
> contains the appropriate classes to handle compression.  
> While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a 
> round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs. 
> a standard approach.
> 
> I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be 
> abandoned; I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the 
> world as opposed to 2.0.
> However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a 
> stopgap.  I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework 
> later on when the java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> 
> Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the 
> 2.0Framework?
> I ported
> 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has 
> changed a few underlying things as well as improved several 
> core classes.  Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 
> months, I would strongly suggest we consider this as a 
> possible solution.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- j
> 
> On 5/11/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johnny,
> >
> > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.  Since .NET 1.1 
> > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this 
> port -- thus, 
> > I left it out.
> >
> > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through 
> > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into 
> Lucene.Net 
> > 1.9.  If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your 
> > code.  Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path 
> to becoming 
> > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > I have found this:
> > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet 
> > implemented.
> >
> > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >
> > 
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > 0e-491
> > 1fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message