lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hakeem Mohammed <hakeemo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Porting Automation - Sharpen
Date Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:31:14 GMT
Sorry, n00b question. I've been a hard code MS developer all my career and
haven't done much Java. If its ported as is from Java, wouldn't we miss on
all the goodies that .NET/C# has which Java doesn't? Alternative would be
having the same interface to the library but doing things internally using
the .NET way. I know that would take more time and commitment

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Ayende Rahien <ayende@ayende.com> wrote:

> As a user of Lucene, I would much rather have a .NET port than IKVM.
> The reasoning behind this is simple, I often need to extend Lucene, or
> modify it in some small ways, and it is much easier to do it if this is all
> a .NET project.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Ryan Hoffman <rhoffman@tntp.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message