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 21:11:39 GMT
George - thanks for the clarification.

-- j

On 5/15/06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Yes, "compatible" does mean the index can be open/read/write/etc. to when
> created with Java/C# Lucene.  This is already is the case with 1.4.x and
> must remain so for 1.9 and forward.  In fact, right now you can have two
> processes, one Java and another .NET Lucene where both concurrently
> accessing the same index as long as they are sharing the same lock file.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:43 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> 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