lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:42:20 GMT

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


 
> Subject: RE: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:29:21 -0500
> From: stemarie@brain-bank.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I will freely admit that I'm seizing the opportunity to raise an old
> point - but that problem would be non-existent if this was a project
> that implemented a methodology as opposed to being a continuous port
> effort. I will even go as far as suggesting that this would broaden (and
> ease) the recruitment of committers. It almost feels like the goal is
> not simply to port Lucene.java to Lucene.net but to also develop a
> technology that ports things automatically. I would almost suggest that
> this in itself could be an ASF TLP. It still feels to me that everyone
> is trying to cut the head off a two-headed dragon with a single sword
> and a single motion.
> 
> Once search algorithms was discovered and implemented - it should be up
> to the language-specific programmers to implement these and optimize
> these as they see fit. Both languages have their strengths and their own
> frameworks - at the moment the java side has great benefits which in
> turn greatly hinder the success of the .net side.
> 
> In a nutshell, while some cultures seem to be better at courtship - the
> fact that I don't speak some of these languages shouldn't make me less
> good at it.
> 
> I think that a project for a Java->NET and NET->Java would be a great
> idea. Again, it would allow a lot of people that are doing the same for
> hundreds of other projects to simply pool their efforts.
> 
> Just my Canadian 2 cents (which is almost at par with the American cents
> these days)
> 
> 
> Karell Ste-Marie
> C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slombard@KINGINDUSTRIES.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: RE: Vote thread started on general@lucene.apache.org
> 
> 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
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message