lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ayende Rahien <aye...@ayende.com>
Subject Re: Lucere project announcement
Date Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:42:15 GMT
The #1 problem with Lucene is that it doesn't implement IDisposable, which
make it _very_ awkward to use in .NET

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Thompson <pierogitus@hotmail.com>wrote:

> I think a better pattern than partial classes would be extension methods
> (like the way LINQ works with IEnumerable). That way the extensions could
> be
> in a separate assembly but appear seamless with the core class.
>
> I don't like the name Lucere. I think it's too close and will create
> confusion. It's so close I wonder if the ASF will have something to say
> about it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:46 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucere project announcement
>
> There is benefit to making partial classes if we want to extend, but that
> adds complexity to the conversion and doesn't do one thing to help us get
> Lucene.Net into more native .net constructs
>
> I personally don't even know enough about lucene yet to know where people
> would want to extend it.
>
> Partial classes I think will be a good move once we have a good system in
> place to convert java to .net and show that we are keeping pace
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Mateja <peter.mateja@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:20:04
> To: <lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Lucere project announcement
>
> I'm a bit concerned that there's going to be a fragmentation of effort
> surrounding Lucene.Net, Lucere, and Aimee, LINQ to Lucene (
> http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/, though this appears to be dead) causing
> more confusion than not.  I do agree that initially, Lucene.Net should
> remain a line by line port.  As much as the Java idioms pulled into
> Lucene.Net can be frustrating to work with in the context of standard .Net
> development, I think it's more important to have something that works now,
> and works exactly the same as the base Lucene.  As discussed ad nauseum in
> other forums this has several key benefits.
>
> That said, I do long for the elegance of recent .Net language constructs
> and
> framework features.  I've heard discussion of trying to build a .Net
> "layer"
> on top of Lucene.Net.  Having dug into the Lucene.Net code a bit, I'd have
> to say that this will not be an easy task.  I'd wager that quite a bit of
> the desired .Net-ification of Lucene.Net will result from better automated
> conversion methods, which would really hinge on the direction taken by the
> Lucene.Net project, not Lucere.
>
> One interesting direction to take, might be to transition some of the core
> classes in Lucene.Net into partial classes, allowing additional additional
> class tooling outside of the Lucene.Net core project.  This is perhaps a
> naive suggestion, so if anyone has already considered this route, let me
> know.
>
> Peter Mateja
> peter.mateja@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > The recent discussions on this mailing list have shown a few things to
> > be
> > true:
> >
> > - Lucene.Net is definitely still a thriving project with strong
> >leadership represented by George and DIGY
> > - The community surrounding the project is vocal, vibrant and filled
> >with ideas and motivation to help
> > - There is a strong interest in seeing Lucene.Net continue as a
> >line-by-line port of Java Lucene:
> >  - It's faster and more manageable to make releases because code can
> >be automatically converted
> >  - Retains all the excellence of the Java Lucene project
> >  - Provides end users with a wealth of existing knowledge and support
> >surrounding the Java Lucene project
> > - There is a strong interest in have a more ".Net style" port of
> >Lucene
> >  - Many users feel using the Java-idiomatic API is unwieldy
> >  - There is a desire to see the code take advantage of valuable .Net
> >framework features that do not exist in Java
> >  - Performance can be improve on the .NET runtime by refactoring
> >
> > I'm very glad to see George has picked up the ball to keep Lucene.Net
> > going and applaud his commitment to keeping the project focused on
> > it's stated goals: a line-by-line port of Java Lucene that releases in
> > sync the main project.
> >
> > I'm also glad to see that a number of people have started contributing
> > in meaningful ways to the Lucene.Net project, working through the
> > action list George posted a few days ago. I would like to
> > optimistically think that crisis is well on it's way to being averted.
> >
> > I think this is a good sign that Lucene.Net will remain a vital and
> > active project as part of the ASF.
> >
> > With that said, I'd like to announce Lucere, a new Lucene-based .NET
> > project.
> >
> > The goal of Lucere is to create a "conceptual port" of Lucene for .NET
> > as contrasted with the current "syntactic port" approach taken by
> > Lucene.Net. We will start by creating a ground-up re-write of the
> > current feature set of Java Lucene 3.0.2 that is optimized for .NET.
> > This is a non-trivial task and may cause our initial release cycle to
> > be slow. Beyond that we will be spending a certain amount of time
> > upfront to design the API and architecture. While building our initial
> > architecture and design we want to take into consideration the many
> > different ideas that our community has to offer, producing what will
> > hopefully be a full featured, flexible library that integrates well
> > into a variety of kinds of applications.
> >
> > For more information, please see the project site at:
> >
> > http://lucere.codeplex.com
> >
> > We hope that the next few weeks will represent a lively discussion
> > from members of the Lucene.Net community about the idea of a new
> > project, our goals and the design and architecture of Lucere. In order
> > to keep discussion focused for both projects, please consider joining
> > the Lucere mailing list by sending a quick email to:
> >
> > lucere+subscribe@googlegroups.com <lucere%2Bsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> > lucere+<lucere%2Bsubscribe@googlegroups.com<lucere%252Bsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> >
> >
> > Or, if you'd rather not use email, feel free to visit the discussion
> > forums on the project site at:
> >
> > http://lucere.codeplex.com/discussions
> >
> > Hopefully there's enough interest in both concepts such that both
> > projects may continue to move forward and thrive. We fully intend to
> > have our cake and eat it too. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message