lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 21:44:40 GMT
My goal with moving forward to .Net 4.0 specifically, is that with 4.0
there are major improvements to the .NET GC, which we have already
found in our company's testing, improves Lucene.Net's memory
management and overall speed significantly. This is without any code
changes, just compiling for .Net 4.0 framework target vs 2.0 or 3.5...

Thanks,
Troy


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Powell <me@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.0 support anyway, you just have
to bin-deploy the .NET 3.5 dependencies (System.Core, etc) since they are all the same CLR
>
> 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: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
>
> All,
>
> Please cast your votes regarding the topic of .Net Framework support.
>
> The question on the table is:
>
> Should Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 be the last release which supports the .Net 2.0 Framework?
>
> Some options are:
>
> [+1] - Yes, move forward to the latest .Net Framework version, and drop support for 2.0
completely. New features and performance are more important than backwards compatibility.
> [0] - Yes, focus on the latest .Net Framework, but also include patches and/or preprocessor
directives and conditional compilation blocks to include support for 2.0 when needed. New
features, performance, and backwards compatibility are all equally important and it's worth
the additional complexity and coding work to meet all of those goals.
> [-1] No, .Net Framework 2.0 should remain our target platform. Backwards compatibility
is more important than new features and performance.
>
>
> This vote is not limited to the Apache Lucene.Net IPMC. All users/contributors/committers/mailing
list lurkers are welcome to cast their votes with an equal weight. This has been cross posted
to both the dev and user mailing lists.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>

Mime
View raw message