lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Hoffman <rhoff...@tntp.org>
Subject RE: Porting Automation - Sharpen
Date Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:47:34 GMT
I would say that performance is paramount, and I'm assuming that everyone else would agree.
 I think it's a great idea to try both IKVM and Sharpen and then make a few benchmarks that
we compare both.  

Ryan Hoffman
Software Architect
The New Teacher Project
www.tntp.org

Evaluation systems are broken - so how do we fix them? Teacher Evaluation 2.0 - http://tntp.org/eval2.0


-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Merkl [mailto:hm@hmerkl.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:37 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Porting Automation - Sharpen

What I got from previous discussions was that IKVM works quite well, but some people don't
like the idea because it produces its own wrappers around Java code. E.g. a collection won't
be represented as .NET collection.

Performance also seems to be close the .NET version (a bit slower).


On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:43, Aaron Powell <me@aaron-powell.com> wrote:

> Sorry I guess that's my naivety shinning through, I was under the 
> impression that it was actually a way of producing .NET hooks into a 
> Java API.
>
> If it's just a conversion tool I say we investigate it for sure.
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
>
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Prescott Nasser 
> <geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > If it spins up a VM just for conversion purposes, does performance 
> > matter much? It'll just be one of us converting it. If it has less 
> > pre / post
> work
> > to convert correctly to a buildable solution, the extra overhead to
> convert
> > is probably less painful.
> >
> >
> > ~Prescott Nasser
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: me@aaron-powell.com
> > > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:25:18 +1100
> > > Subject: Re: Porting Automation - Sharpen
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > > What's the performance of IKVM? I'm skeptical about having to spin 
> > > up a
> > Java
> > > VM inside .NET and the kind of overhead that that would produce 
> > > Aaron Powell Umbraco Ninja
> > >
> > > http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> > > aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Ryan Hoffman <rhoffman@tntp.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I'm loving all the recent activity on the dev list. I've been
> watching
> > it
> > > > for some time, and I was also deeply disturbed seeing no posts. 
> > > > This
> is
> > my
> > > > first message on the list :).
> > > >
> > > > I see that you are evaluating Sharpen. I was wondering if you've
> heard
> > of
> > > > IKVM, it's a Java VM that runs on top of .NET/Mono and it also
> includes
> > a
> > > > tool which can be used to convert java libraries/apps to .NET
> > assemblies.
> > > > Check it out at: http://www.ikvm.net/. If this works, it 
> > > > promises to
> > be
> > > > a very reliable way to convert the official java distribution to
> .NET.
> > > >
> > > > I will give this a shot soon and report back!
> > > >
> > > > Ryan Hoffman
> > > > Software Architect
> > > > The New Teacher Project
> > > > www.tntp.org
> > > >
> > > > Evaluation systems are broken - so how do we fix them? Teacher
> > Evaluation
> > > > 2.0 - http://tntp.org/eval2.0
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 10:25 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Porting Automation - Sharpen
> > > >
> > > > Nice work Alex with getting the ball rolling.
> > > >
> > > > I've decided to chuck the contents of that ZIP onto bitbucket (I 
> > > > hope
> > you
> > > > don't mind) since it'll be easier to track the testing against 
> > > > it
> than
> > > > through an email. It's available here:
> > > > http://hg.slace.biz/lucene-via-sharpen
> > > > This is the raw package contents from Alex, I'll do some updates 
> > > > to
> it
> > so
> > > > that it's not tied to Alex's setup and works more generically 
> > > > (unless someone beats me to it) over the weekend
> > > >
> > > > <http://hg.slace.biz/lucene-via-sharpen>Note: This is NOT an 
> > > > attempt
> > to
> > > > move away from ASF, it's just a way for us to test out how well
> Sharpen
> > > > performs as a tool for Java to .NET conversion, if it turns out 
> > > > to be
> a
> > > > viable option this will be rolled back to ASF. This is just a
> > playground :)
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Powell
> > > > Umbraco Ninja
> > > >
> > > > http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> > > > aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Alex Thompson <
> pierogitus@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I did an initial run of Lucene 3.0.2 through Sharpen. It stops 
> > > > > when
> > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > an error or finds something it doesn't have a mapping for. I 
> > > > > added
> > some
> > > > > placeholder mappings so it would at least get through a few files.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a package of what I have so far:
> > > > > http://convid.com/alex/lucene/Lucene.Net.Sharpen20101104.zip
> > > > >
> > > > > It contains the C# files from the test run, the jars for 
> > > > > Sharpen,
> and
> > my
> > > > > Ant
> > > > > script with the custom mappings. I encourage others to look at 
> > > > > the
> > code
> > > > and
> > > > > try sharpen. You can use my script to get started.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message