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 23:17:47 GMT
And just for this hard work I removed the obsolete Similarity.Net.
DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 1:53 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

I'm not sure that I see a conflict. Are you referring to the use of generic
Dictionary in IndexInput in 2.9.4g? That's the only point where I could see
a possible problem, but generic dictionaries are supported on WP7, so it
should be fine.

In which case, the two should merge and compile correctly.

Thanks,
Troy


On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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