lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
Date Fri, 31 Dec 2010 23:58:15 GMT
We are inheriting the outstanding issues facing the Lucene.Net project.

This includes remaining committed to providing a line-by-line port
that stays in sync with the Java Lucene releases.

The project is currently extremely behind schedule on this. The 2.9.2
code base, which is widely used and thus a fairly well received build,
has never been formally packaged as a release (i.e. binary builds,
etc). This is the first order of business to take care of (in terms of
code).

After that we need to evaluate weather or not to create releases to
match all subsequent releases made by the Java Lucene project.

Those releases are:
- 3.0.0
- 3.0.1
- 2.9.3
- 3.0.2
- 2.9.4
- 3.0.3

In the interest of time, we could skip some of the intermediate
releases and just get in sync at 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 releases.

The 3.0.X ports should be 100% Sharpen conversions and post-processing
scripts. Once written, anyone should be able to repeat the process of
pulling down the appropriate Java Lucene SVN revision, executing the
porting scripts, and building the resulting .NET code, yield a valid
3.0.X release with a 1:1 matching API.

This is something we will need to continue being able to do for every
subsequent Java Lucene release.

This aspect of our development should be completely separate from our
refactoring/re-imagining of a more .NET-like API. They need to be
separate development branches, and possibly even completely different
implementations. We will attempt to reuse as much of the automated
port code as we can, with the understanding that the goal of the
secondary branch is to make a high-quality .NET implementation of
Lucene, rather than a API compatible implementation.

Thanks,
Troy



On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Alex Thompson <pierogitus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we could just bug-fix support the current 2.9.2 codebase unless people
> really need something in 2.9.x
>
> I think there would be a 3.0.x line-by-line port and a 3.0.x idiomatic
> version.
>
> I'd like to throw another idea into the mix which is perhaps the idiomatic
> version could be created by an automated refactoring of the line-by-line. It
> might be additional upfront work but might make it easier for future changes
> from java lucene to be propagated down.
>
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mherndon@amptools.net [mailto:mherndon@amptools.net] On Behalf Of
> Michael Herndon
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 1:28 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
>
> *Backwards Compatibility / Support: *
> This is definitely something we need to cover.
>
> I'm guessing the obvious choice would be to continue the 2.9.X versions
> under sharpen, maintain the current api thats has java idioms so that people
> can continue to use it, release patches, ensure stability with the current
> community. This would be important for people who have built products on top
> of lucene.net.
>
> The 3.0 version should probably match java in terms of breaking the api due
> to the language changes or maybe even a separate project inside:
> lucene.netredux (for lack of a better term at the moment).
>
>
> *
> *
> --
> Michael Herndon
>
>

Mime
View raw message