lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ciaran Roarty" <ciaran.roa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.Net project involvement
Date Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:57:18 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message