lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net Hackathon (5/13-/516)
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 08:15:05 GMT

I think Troy has the structure ready to roll - I'm not sure if there is a coding difference
between the C# stuff and the other directory stuff. If there isn't then we can probably branch
C# to something like pre_NewStructure (someone help me with a better name), then remove it
from the trunk.
 
Troy I believe was investigating the legal task - perhaps he can update us if he ever got
an answer
 
If you want to jump into a smaller task take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-372
(currently assigned to me). I updated a ton of the analyers, but I believe them to be out
of date from the java 2.9.4 branch because I used the attached files from Pasha without paying
attention to the age of them. So those could use a review. I also never ported the test cases,
which we definately should have.



----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 10:04:03 +0200
> From: mammo@rotselleri.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net Hackathon (5/13-/516)
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
> >
> > +1 to getting 2.9.4 ready to roll + the changes to the directory structure we have
> > going
>
> +1 for 2.9.4 and directory structure.
> To make that happen, I'd like to know what needs to be done and in
> what way I could be of any help. There are 10 open issues for 2.9.4,
> and (apart from the Luke issues mentioned below) none of them makes me
> feel that I can grab it and start coding.
>
> > -Sharpen stuff - I haven't had time to get it really working (not to mention I don't
know
> > eclipse from a hole in the ground). I haven't heard from Alex in a while, who I
think is
> > the most knowledgeable on the subject.
>
> Also most important to get closer to the java version.
>
> > -.NET syntax.
> +1, the API often feels quite awkward to use.
>
> > That said, I think Luke is important. If we left with the idea of you could run
Luke in
> > java just find, we could also just say use lucene/solr and the api provided, no
need
> > for the Lucene.Net project. (I know it's a bit different). That said, I don't think
it's top
> > priority, but it would be nice to have a .net implimentation.
>
> Agree, it would be nice to have.
>
> > Sergey was working on a port of this in WPF - can he perhaps provide an update on
> > what's going on with that? I think it was located at bit bucket at one point, and
then I
> > lost track..
>
> The WPF track was abandoned due to absent WPF support in mono. I
> adopted code attached to LUCENET-391 by Pasha Bizhan and it is
> continued on
> https://github.com/mammo/LukeSharp (mirror at
> https://bitbucket.org/mammo/lukesharp). Testing and reporting of
> broken or missing features would be most appreciated.
>
> I am not sure how to resolve the Luke legal sub-task LUCENET-397, is
> it enough that Pasha has attached the code or is more paper work
> required?
>
>
> /amanuel 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message