lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "George Aroush" <geo...@aroush.net>
Subject RE: Lucene.NET Pure [was 'Lucene.Net project involvement']
Date Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:32:23 GMT
Hi Ciaran,

Please see my comments below.  Thanks.

-- George Aroush 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ciaran Roarty [mailto:ciaran.roarty@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:44 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Lucene.NET Pure [was 'Lucene.Net project involvement']
> 
> Hi
> 
> I just want to check some facts and see if I have picked up 
> the right emphasis from the majority of the posts.
> 
> Firstly, Lucene.NET 2.1 is due to be released soon.

Yes, Lucene.Net 2.1, a first cut release should be out by end of this week
or over the coming weekend.  Btw, it's "Lucene.Net" and not "Lucene.NET"

> Secondly, the port of Lucene to Lucene.NET is not an 
> automatic process and George does post-migration work 
> currently to bring the JLCA work closer to the .NET world.
> 
> Using the Lucene.NET effort, people on this list have gone 
> away and made the port of Lucene into a purer .NET version. 
> These changes have, however, stayed internal to their work 
> and they have not been backported.

Are you sure about this?  I have not read anyone saying this.  What folks
have said is that they eliminated unnecessary exceptions from the Lucene.Net
code; exceptions that also exist in the Java version and were brought over
to C# via the port.  There is a JIRA issue about this and we had a long
discussion about it on this mailing list some time ago.  The folks on the
Java mailing list knew about it and fixed it for 2.1 release.

> When I asked the question about getting involved in the 
> project and making Lucene.NET 'purer' - in a .NET sense - 
> then there appeared to be a real desire to get involved with 
> that process. It was also noted that this would need to be a 
> manual process; I suggested that the next major release - 
> Lucene.NET 2.1 - should be the basis for this work.
> 
> Therefore, I think we should branch the code at 2.1 and work 
> on that branch.
> In that way, we do not stop the progress of Lucene.NET in 
> line with Lucene but we do get to make some .NET optimisations.

I disagree about branching off a new baseline.  Like I said in a previous
posting, the first thing we need to do is bring up Lucene.Net to be in part
with the code base of what's in the Java Lucene SVN with what's in the C#
Lucene SVN.  Once we achieve this important but difficult milestone, and
most importantly we prove that we can maintain it, then we can start looking
at the existing code base and make the code .NET 'purer'.
 
> Lastly, I believe that .NET 2.0 was the preferred platform 
> for this work and that it would be ok to use .NET 2.0 
> specific capabilities.

Yes, the work on Lucene.Net 2.1 will be release .NET 2.0 specific; but
again, our first goal must be that we get in par with Java's Lucene SVN
before we diverge the code into more .NET.

> Does that sound right? Any builds on this? Any problems with 
> the approach?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Ciaran Roarty
> 


Mime
View raw message