lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Rodenburg" <jeff.rodenb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compression Implementation
Date Mon, 15 May 2006 20:43:13 GMT
Does "compatible" equal the ability for a Java implementation of Lucene to
open/read/write to an index created in Lucene.Net?

On 5/15/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message