lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karell Ste-Marie" <stema...@brain-bank.com>
Subject RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:24:32 GMT
I think it took be 5 "deletes" of this e-mail and complete rewrites to try to say this in the
best way possible:

First off, Sharpen is a java tool (from the db4o SVN I found) - using sharpen to port lucene
to .net means that people now have to install a jvm on their computers in order to contribute.
While this may seem like it makes perfect sense in fact it is this type of requirements that
scares pure .net developers away. You cannot ask someone to install a bunch of tools "outside"
of their comfort zone in order to create a tool that works in their world. Furthermore, it's
also saying that now - not only do contributors need to know java and have a jvm, but then
they also need to know sharpen in order to make a c# product.

Gentlemen, I would gladly contribute - I can assure you that I wouldn't be the best but I
would be happy to lend a hand - but speaking strictly for myself I don't see myself learning
2-3 new pieces of technologies when I feel that I should just be a good c# programmer to help
out.

Would it not make more sense, given the fact that we want to reduce work and make a quality
product that we become more selective about *what* goes through Sharpen and what can be hand-crafted?
IE: Do we really need to port the Java methods of writing to files and handling Threading?
What about WCF?



Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc


-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:46 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org

That is exactly what I would suggest. Sharpen looks like a great tool, since you can customize
it's behaviour. In fact, the only downside is that you have to customize it's behaviour which
requires a lot of upfront work.

Thanks,
Troy


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the technology is there - no generic porting
tool will be 100%, it will always require pre/post processing. Sharpen is a pretty good generic
conversion tool.
>
> I agree in that I think we need to focus on a process utilizing a tool such as sharpen
and developing the pre/post processing clean up scripts that are specific to Lucene.
>
> ~Prescott
Mime
View raw message