lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:52:42 GMT
Troy,

What do you mean by "merging"? 2.9.4g is a superset of 2.9.4 and has
* bux fixes like LUCENENET-414 
* new features  like LUCENENET-429, MemoryMappedDirectory(although not used yet) ,  PartiallyTrustedAppDomain
tests
* improvements like LUCENENET-427, LUCENENET-418,  Refactoring of SupportClass
* API changes like 
  - StopAnalyzer(List<string> stopWords)
  - Query.ExtractTerms(ICollection<string>)
  - TopDocs.TotalHits, TopDocs.ScoreDocs
* readibily-changes like replacing some abstract methods with Func<>, while(XXX.MoveNext())s
with foreachs
etc.

Is it something like creating a 2.9.4 tag and replacing trunk with 2.9.4g?

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:36 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

DIGY - Re: Why do I wait.. That's mostly because I intend to make some deep
changes, which would make merging the 2.9.4g branch back to trunk difficult.
So, it's easier to merge those changes first. Also, I won't have enough time
to make my changes until a little way in the future, but probably do have
the time to put together another release, so I'll do that first because it
fits with my work/life schedule.

Thanks,
Troy


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael,
> You interpret the report as "whoever commits code wins"? But when I look at
> it, I see "a lof of talk, no work". .Net community is not interested in
> contributing.
> I really don't understand what hinders people to work on Lucene.Net. As I
> did for 2.9.4g, grab the code, do whatever you want on it and submit back.
> If it doesn't fit to the project's direction it can still find a place in
> contrib or in branch. All of the approaches can live side by side happily in
> the Lucene.Net repository.
>
> Troy,
> I also don't understand why do you wait for 2.9.4g? It is a *branch* and
> has nothing to do with the trunk. It need not be an offical release and can
> live in branch as a PoC.
>
>
> As a result, I got bored to listen to "this should be done that way". What
> I want to see is "I did it that way, should we continue with this".
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:47 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> Michael,
>
> I agree with everything you said. My point in saying "whoever commits code
> wins" was to illustrate the reality of how and why the project has the
> current form.
>
> Building consensus is difficult. It is an essential first step before we
> can
> do something like make a list of bit-sized pieces of work that others can
> work on.
>
> This is why my real message of "Let's find a way to accommodate both" is so
> important. It allows us to build consensus, so that we can settle on a
> direction and structure our work.
>
> Until we accomplish that, it really is "whoever commits code wins", and
> that
> is an unhealthy and unmaintainable way to operate.
>
> From a technical perspective, your statements about the unit tests are
> completely accurate. They really need a LOT of reworking. That's the very
> first step before making any significant changes. Part of the problem is
> that the tests themselves are not well written. The other part is that the
> Lucene object model was not designed for testability, and it makes writing
> good tests more difficult, and certain tests might not be possible. It will
> be difficult to write good unit tests without re-structuring. The biggest
> issue is the use of abstract classes with base behaviour vs interfaces or
> fully abstracted classes. Makes mocking tough. This is the direction I was
> going when I started the Lucere project. I'd like to start in on that work
> after the 2.9.4g release.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd say that is all the more reasons that we need to work smarter and not
> > harder. I'd also say thats a good reason to make sure we build consensus
> > rather than just saying whoever commits code wins.
> >
> > And its a damn good reason to focus on the effort of growing the number
> of
> > contributors and lowing the barrier to submitting patches, breaking
> things
> > down into pieces that people would feel confident to work on without
> > being overwhelmed by the complexity of Lucene.Net.
> >
> > There is a pretty big gap between Lucene 2.9.x to Lucene 4.0 and the
> > internals and index formats are significantly different including nixing
> > the
> > current vint file format and using byte[] array slices for Terms instead
> of
> > char[].
> >
> > So while porting 1 to 1 while require less knowledge or thought, its most
> > likely going to require more hours of work. And Its definitely not going
> to
> > guarantee the stability of the code or that its great code.
> >
> > I'd have to say that its not as stable as most would believe at the
> moment.
> >
> > Most of the tests avoid anything that remotely looks like it knows about
> > the
> > DRY principle and there is a static constructor in the core test case
> that
> > throws an exception if it doesn't find an environment variable "TEMP"
> which
> > will fail 90% of the tests and nunit will be unable to give you a clear
> > reason why.  Just to name a few issues I came across working towards
> > getting
> > Lucene.Net into CI.  I haven't even started really digging in under the
> > covers of the code yet.
> >
> > So my suggestion is to chew on this a bit more and build consensus, avoid
> > fracturing people into sides.  Be open to reservations and concerns that
> > others have and continue to address them.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this is our
> > > contribution report for the past 5 years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-2Q
> > >
> > >
> >
> AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-1&issue
> > >
> > >
> >
> Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r
> > > eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next
> > >
> > >
> > > DIGY
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:ayende@ayende.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM
> > > To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> needed?
> > >
> > > As someone from the nhibernate project
> > > We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it
> > > We have mire features, less bugs and better code base
> > >
> > > Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> needed?
> > > I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am curious with people
> > who
> > > hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate users?
> > >
> > > -r
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <lysaghtn@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has
> > > outlined
> > > > below.
> > > >
> > > > If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose
> > out
> > > > on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make.
> > > > It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search,  a
> >  deep
> > > > knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the
> > > knowledge
> > > > will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be
> > > give.
> > > >
> > > > When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it
> > has
> > > > moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to
> > > abandoning
> > > a
> > > > line by line port.
> > > > By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and
> .NET
> > > > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the
> > moment);
> > > but
> > > > leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
> > > >
> > > > Just my tu-pence worth.
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards
> > > > Noel
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM
> > > >
> > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > Cc:
> > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<
> > lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> > needed?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the
> > > > history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work,
> > all
> > > > the understanding of search, all the new features come from the
> Lucene
> > > > Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust
> them
> > > > to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and
> > to
> > > > have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on.
> > > >
> > > > Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET
> > > > who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot
> more
> > > > value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll
> > take
> > > > a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is
> > significantly
> > > > diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at
> > what
> > > > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all?
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to
> > continue,
> > > > and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction.
> > > >
> > > > So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be
> > > > sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using
> Lucene
> > > > in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on.
> > So
> > > > let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general
> structure
> > > > close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance
> > > > set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other
> > methods
> > > > and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same
> > > > file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of
> similarity,
> > > > with good documentation and help being available from the Java
> > > > community.
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > > Moray
> > > > ------------------------------**-------
> > > > Moray McConnachie
> > > > Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
> > > > Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Granroth, Neal V.
> > > [mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com<
> neal.granroth@thermofisher.com>
> > > > ]
> > > > Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<
> > > lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > Cc:
> > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<
> > 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<lombardenator@gmail.com>
> > > > ]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org <
> > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > >;
> > > > lucene-net-user@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------**---------------------------
> > > > Disclaimer
> > > >
> > > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> If
> > > > this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > disclose
> > > > them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> > > >
> > > > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > > > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > > > ------------------------------**---------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


Mime
View raw message