lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Lombard" <lombardena...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:29:20 GMT
When I look at the goals of Lucene.Net I am trying to understand what is
more important to Lucene.Net users, .NET functionality or a line-for-line
port.

.NET and Java are close but not the same.  In the past when give the choice
between a better .NET way or stay with the Java implementation the project
chose to keep the Java implementation.  If users don't care that it is a
line-for-line port then contributors will have more freedom to use a better
.NET way, while keeping functionality and index compatibility.  

As contributors we can figure out how to get from the Java to Lucene.Net.
This will probably be an automated tool, but the source that the tool
outputs wouldn't need to be highly polished or even compile.  The primary
purpose would be to simplify the process of get from Java to .NET for a
release.


Scott


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:17 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> For the sake of continued conversation, Scott could you define what you
> mean
> by line-by-line port vs non-line-by-line port since technically your the
> thread starter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or
> > not.
> >
> > But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
> > easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
> >
> > PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level
> incompatibility.
> >
> > DIGY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> >
> > This is has been discussed many times.
> > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a
> > line-by-line port.  It ceases to be Lucene.
> >
> > - Neal
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> >
> >
> >
> > After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net
> 2.0
> > to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a line-by-line
> > port.  Starting with Digy's excellent work on the conversion to generics
> a
> > priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 packages would not be
> > interchangeable.  So faster turnaround from a java release won't matter
> to
> > non line-by-line users they will have to wait until the updates are made
> to
> > the non line-by-line code base.
> >
> >
> >
> > My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port?
> Anyone
> > have a comment?
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


Mime
View raw message