lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 20:28:10 GMT
The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
platform to a newer major version.

An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of
lucene.netthat are compile on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was exist in order
versions.

They would want the patch back-ported in a version that supported .Net 2.0
because of the perceived cost in upgrading the rest of the software to a
newer version of .net.

I'm all for pushing people forward (I tend to use var and mixins myself).

But it might be wise to think on a strategy that allows room for back
porting any critical updates and supporting those till date/year x (though
no longer than 2 years at most) to give people breathing room and avoiding
panic.

- Michael


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the
> general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking.
>
> Re: Government projects and new tech.. There is nothing stopping
> conservative organizations from using our previous releases. Building from
> source or using the bleeding edge is not a smart tactic for anyone who
> cares
> about stability, government or otherwise.
>
> -T
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>
> > Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki
> and
> > tweeted and even blogged about.
> >
> > There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using
> > Lucene.Net inside of government projects.  They always take forever in
> > letting you develop with the latest stable technologies.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The new C# features are committed only to 2.9.4g branch. 2.9.4 can
> still
> > be
> > > built targeting .NET 2.0.
> > > We can continue to support both version in parallel (in terms of bug
> > fixes
> > > such as LUCENENET-172 & LUCENENET-413, maybe LUCENENET-266) and declare
> > that
> > > 2.9.4 will be the last version supporting 2.0 framework.
> > >
> > > DIGY
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
> > >
> > > Using var is wonderful and great. We'll hopefully do doing a lot of
> > > refactoring in the near future. var makes refactoring easier.
> > >
> > > I think we've committed fairly strongly to moving past 2.0 support.
> AFAIK
> > > the current trunk won't build under 2.0 anyhow (or am I mistaken, DIGY
> > used
> > > HashSet<T> in a recent patch, which is 3.5 or higher, and all the
> > solutions
> > > I committed in the recent directory updates were VS2010, and all the
> > csproj
> > > files updated to target 4.0). So, I don't see any reason to maintain
> 2.0
> > > compatibility... The 4.0 runtime offers so many benefits over previous
> > > versions that, IMO, everyone who writes .NET apps should be working
> hard
> > to
> > > migrate forward to 4.0 if they aren't already there.
> > >
> > > We can help the community along by giving them one more good reason to
> > > switch to a better runtime.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Troy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Aaron Powell <me@aaron-powell.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes it's a C# 3 feature, but the C# 3 compiler (shipped in VS 2008)
> can
> > > > compile C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 assemblies.
> > > > Quick test: http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/var-csharp-2.PNG
> > > >
> > > > I don't have VS 2008 though, this test was done with VS 2010 using
> the
> > > > multitargetting features
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Powell
> > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team
> > > > Member | FunnelWeb Team Member
> > > >
> > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell
> |
> > > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ~Prescott Nasser
> > > > prescott.nasser@hotmail.com
> > > > 650.208.4205
> > > >
> > > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: me@aaron-powell.com
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 07:28:36 +0000
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding of the 'var' keyword is just C# syntactic sugar,
> > which
> > > > the compiler will translate into the actual CLR type for variable
> > > > assignment, so the compiler is capable of compiling CLR 2.0
> assemblies
> > > > anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron Powell
> > > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member
|
> > > > FunnelWeb Team Member
> > > > >
> > > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell
> > |
> > > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that is going to depend on if we are continuing .net 2.0
/
> C#
> > > 2.0
> > > > support or dropping it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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