lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Mitiaguin <mitiagu...@optusnet.com.au>
Subject Re: Lucene.Net project involvement
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:18:55 GMT
Ciaran,

What I can't understand if core of synchronising versions with Java 
Lucene is   Java Language Conversion Assistant, how all this cleaning 
up/revising  is going to work.
Would it be  possible to build automated procedure which preserve all 
.Net improvements after conversion from major upgrade from Java ?  I  am 
not sure.
Even if to track somehow  only changed/added Java classes still for each 
such class merging new/revised Java  functionality with previous manual 
changes to utilise  .Net capabalities is required.
You used term component , but Lucene is rather API with fine grained 
classes and a simple change may propagate into  several  classes  (  
files  in  Java ) .
I don't know how George is coping with that and what would be the plan 
if say tomorrow Lucene Java 3 will be realeased.

Michael

Ciaran Roarty wrote:

> Michael
>
> I've been in touch with George about getting involved and he said to 
> post to
> the mailing list.
>
> I reckon there's a fair amount of work could be done in changing the
> codebase without affecting the published interface and I reckon that's 
> where
> the bulk of the initial work would take place; as we know, the code is 
> not
> yet optimised for .NET.
>
> Now, balanced against that, in my opinion are the following factors:
>
> - The code currently compiles against 1.1 and 2.0 (albeit with some
> obsolence); any change to move Lucene.Net to 2.0 would leave the
> 1.1codebase behind.
> - There are different types of contribution to the codebase: cleaning up
> code; revising methods and classes to benefit .NET standards and
> capabilities is a good thing. However, Lucene is a powerful IR 
> component and
> if the core development of those capabilities happens in the Java version
> then we will need to follow that.
>
> That's my thoughts for the moment. Maybe we could take a specific part of
> the component and revise that. Learning lessons about the process and the
> codebase from that exercise, we can move into the guts of the
> component......
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ciaran
>
> On 27/03/07, Michael Mitiaguin <mitiaguinm@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ciaran,
>>
>> The only active contributor to the project is George Aroush and perhaps
>> he is the only person who will give you the most definite answer.
>> I am also interested only in  Net2/3 codebase . Currently vesion 2.0.4
>> still uses VS 2003 projects and my main concern are warning messages
>> about deprecated and obsolete methods when compiled under Net2.
>> Supposedly it 'll be fixed in 2.1
>> Also Java Lucene is more mature project with a lot of people involved
>> and it would be safer to crosstranslate new things from there taking
>> into consideration  .Net specifics.
>> From other hand in my case if Lucene will be part of a  project where
>> all warning messages considered to be the errors which must be
>> eliminated , it it beyond my competency what can be done to achieve
>> that. ( JavaCC generated code crosstranslation creates a lot of them )
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>>
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> > I too have used Lucene.Net with C# 2.0 to great effect. However, I am
>> > discussing the use of .Net 2.0 in the codebase itself; and, if not, 
>> the
>> > optimisation of the codebase for .Net in general.
>> >
>> > Ciaran
>> >
>> >
>> > On 26/03/07, tony njedeh <njedeh@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I set up my lucene to a .net 2.0 framework, using VB and it works
>> >> well in
>> >> that environment.
>> >>
>> >> Anthony
>> >>
>> >> Ciaran Roarty <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> George et al
>> >>
>> >> I have been using Lucene.Net in a proof-of-concept environment for 
>> the
>> >> last
>> >> couple of months - with my colleague Guy Steel - and we wanted to get
>> >> involved in its development.
>> >>
>> >> I am a .NET developer for a large consultancy company and would 
>> like to
>> >> get
>> >> involved in making Lucene.Net more aligned to .NET and .NET 2/3 in
>> >> particular. However, I am not sure if that is something which is
>> >> initially
>> >> planned for Lucene.Net. As I understand it, the majority of the
>> >> conversion
>> >> has been done, initially, using the Java Language Conversion 
>> Assistant.
>> >> Some
>> >> of the Java codebase uses patterns that are not best practice for 
>> .NET
>> -
>> >> such as using Exceptions for non-exceptional circumstances. This is
>> >> not to
>> >> denigrate Lucene.Net, it is one of the best pieces of software I have
>> >> used.
>> >>
>> >> So, this email should be considered an introduction and a request 
>> to be
>> >> allowed to get involved. I have never worked on an Open Source 
>> project
>> >> before so I'll need some guidance but I am willing to learn. I do 
>> have
>> a
>> >> couple of questions to start with:
>> >>
>> >> - Is there a roadmap for the product? Is there a roadmap for Lucene
>> that
>> >> we
>> >> will try and follow?
>> >> - Is there a preferred version of the .NET Framework that it is
>> >> planned to
>> >> support?
>> >>
>> >> Enough for now, just wanted to introduce myself and get involved.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Ciaran
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message