lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@o19s.com>
Subject Re: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:45:38 GMT
Does the conversion tool actually help or hinder?

My feeling is that the more dependency you have on a tool, the less likely
this project will ever stand on its own.

There should probably be parallelized branches. one that continues using the
tool to provide for the current gaps between .net & lucene while the other
branch that focuses on more .net styled api is moved forward.

It also seemed like other volunteers wanted to use Visual Studio 2010, move
lucene.net to a more .net friendly api (hopefully adhere a bit better to the
ms coding guidelines<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/brada/archive/2005/01/26/361363.aspx>so
that figure one's way around the code base is less invovled), and let
it
evolve.

As Grant points out, the biggest problem is getting people to not
just discuss the future of lucene.net but actually to step up and get
involved working on it.

No one should be discarded for their lack of  Java or programming knowledge
if they have a sincere wish to learn and hours to give to the project.
 There are more things to be done than just coding or porting java code.
 They can learn as they go.  Does one really need to know Java to write C#
test cases?

This project seriously lacks visibility, documentation, a decent website,
blogging on lucene.net, or any kind of decent PR/Marketing pathway that will
help build up the community and move it forward.  Any future PMC should be
cognizant of that as well as the landscape of .Net opensource and how that
is changing of late.


The java version has solr (which any language can talk to) built on top of
it and can use other projects like tika / poi for indexing.  Whats the
business value of lucene.net if its line by line port of the lucene version
that doesn't have anything extra that its father project already has?

Something to think on.




- Michael


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Lombard, Scott <slombard@kingindustries.com
> wrote:

> Marco,
>
> My feeling would be to create strong automated conversion tools to allow
> java Lucene to be ported in to .NET in as few steps and as possible.  The
> .net style goal is a noble one, but will require a significant more
> commitment to the project in the future.  As each new version of java Lucene
> will have to be integrated by hand into the .net version.
>
> As the conversion tools get more advanced and robust .net style code may be
> implemented as part of the automated conversion process.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marco Dissel [mailto:marco.dissel@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:16 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
>
> What will be the goal of new committors? Convert the source into .net style
> code? If yes, we should try to stop will all the spin-offs and concentrate
> all the development in one project.
> Op 30 dec. 2010 19:02 schreef "Lombard, Scott" <
> slombard@kingindustries.com>
> het volgende:
> > Grant,
> >
> > Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work
> on
> a proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other
> people
> to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant
> has
> stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be
> a committer?
> >
> > Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring
> Lucene.Net into incubation.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> >
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Grant,
> >>
> >> Thanks for taking the time to respond.
> >>
> >> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess
> the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't
> mind
> being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I
> could
> just use Lucene proper and that would be that)
> >>
> >> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a
> black box of questions for most of us.
> >>
> >> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand
> *why* it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc.
> Maybe if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF
> would make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF
> as the group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net.
> >
> > I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with
> the unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the
> PMC have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again,
> it is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't
> want
> to be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who
> are
> willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and
> I
> will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to
> tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take
> around this same circle of discussion.
> >
> > Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no
> longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to
> see
> it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30
> minutes of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be
> copied
> and pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of
> you have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could
> have put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft
> and got other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a
> positive
> direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to
> because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move
> forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to.
> >
> >>
> >> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is
> also somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems
> very stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how
> will anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day
> and have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in
> there somewhere.
> >>
> >> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back
> in
> the SourceForge days...
> >> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was
> brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?"
> >
> > Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not
> mean
> it is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the
> ASF since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your
> interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of
> that community to MyBatis)
> >
> > -Grant
> >
> >
> > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
> > use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
> > contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
> > constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
> > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
> > distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
> > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> > it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
>
>
> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> it from your computer.  Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
>



-- 
Michael Herndon
Senior Developer (mherndon@o19s.com)
804.767.0083

[connect online]
http://www.opensourceconnections.com
http://www.amptools.net
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-herndon/4/893/23
http://www.facebook.com/amptools.net
http://www.twitter.com/amptools-net

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