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 21:36:00 GMT
OK. Maybe I asked wrong question, Suppose I committed IsolatedStorageDirectory only to trunk.
How would you merge this branch & trunk?

DIGY.

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:28 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

Yes. But if there are commits to trunk before that happens it's a merge.

-T
On Jul 2, 2011 1:53 PM, "Digy" <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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