lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:48:01 GMT
I think whatever makes sense to do.

possibly create one jira for now with a running list that can be modified
and possibly as people pull from that list, cross things off or create a
separate ticket that links back to to the main one.




On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Rory Plaire <codekaizen@gmail.com> wrote:

> @Michael -
>
> Should that list be in JIRA? It would be easier to manage, I think...
>
> If yes, I'll happily do it.
>
> -r
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Michael Herndon <
> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> > wrote:
>
> > * need to document what the build script does.  whut grammerz?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Michael Herndon <
> > mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> >
> > > @Rory, @All,
> > >
> > > The only tickets I currently have for those is LUCENE-419, LUCENE-418
> > >
> > > 418, I should be able to push into the 2.9.4g branch tonight.    419 is
> a
> > > long term goal and not as important as getting the tests fixed, of have
> > the
> > > tests broken down into what is actually a unit test, functional test,
> > perf
> > > or long running test. I can get into more why it needs to be done.
> > >
> > > I'll also need to make document the what build script currently does on
> > the
> > > wiki & and make a few notes about testing, like using the RAMDirectory,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Things that need to get done or even be discussed.
> > >  * There needs to be a running list of things to do/not to do with
> > testing.
> > > I don't know if this goes in a jira or do we keep a running list on the
> > wiki
> > > or site for people to pick up and  help with.
> > >  * Tests need to run on mono and not Fail (there is a good deal of
> > failing
> > > tests on mono, mostly due to the temp directory have the C:\ in the
> > path).
> > >  * Assert.Throw<ExceptionType>() needs to be used instead of Try/Catch
> > > Assert.Fail.  **
> > >  * File & Path combines to the temp directory need helper methods,
> > >      * e,g, having this in a hundred places is bad   new
> > >
> >
> System.IO.FileInfo(System.IO.Path.Combine(Support.AppSettings.Get("tempDir",
> > > ""), "testIndex"));
> > >  * We should still be testing deprecated methods, but we need to use
> > #pragma
> > > warning disable/enable 0618  for testing those. otherwise compiler
> > warnings
> > > are too numerous to be anywhere near helpful.
> > >  * We should only be using deprecated methods in places where they are
> > > being explicitly tested, other tests that need that functionality in
> > order
> > > to validate those tests should be re factored to use methods that are
> not
> > > deprecated.
> > >  * Identify code that could be abstracted into test utility classes.
> > >  * Infrastructure Validation tests need to be made, anything that seems
> > > like infrastructure.  e.g. does the temp directory exist, does the
> > folders
> > > that the tests use inside the temp directory exist, can we read/write
> to
> > > those folders. (if a ton of tests fail due to the file system, we
> should
> > be
> > > able to point out that it was due to permissions or missing folders,
> > files,
> > > etc).
> > >  * Identify what classes need an interface, abstract class or inherited
> > in
> > > order to create testing mocks. (once those classes are created, they
> > should
> > > be documented in the wiki).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ** Asset.Throws needs to replace stuff like the following. We should
> also
> > > be checking the messages for exceptions and make sure they make sense
> and
> > > can help users fix isses if the exceptions are aimed at the library
> > users.
> > > try
> > > {
> > > d = DateTools.StringToDate("97"); // no date
> > >  Assert.Fail();
> > > }
> > > catch (System.FormatException e)
> > >  {
> > > /* expected exception */
> > > }
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Rory Plaire <codekaizen@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> So, veering towards action - are there concrete tasks written up
> > anywhere
> > >> for the unit tests? If a poor schlep like me wanted to dig in and
> start
> > to
> > >> improve them, where would I get the understanding of what is good and
> > what
> > >> needs help?
> > >>
> > >> -r
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I can not say I like this approach, but till we find an automated
> > >> way(with
> > >> > good results), it seems to be the only way we can use.
> > >> >
> > >> > DIGY
> > >> >
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:43 AM
> > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> > needed?
> > >> >
> > >> > Scott -
> > >> >
> > >> > The idea of the automated port is still worth doing. Perhaps it
> makes
> > >> sense
> > >> > for someone more passionate about the line-by-line idea to do that
> > work?
> > >> >
> > >> > I would say, focus on what makes sense to you. Being productive,
> > >> regardless
> > >> > of the specific direction, is what will be most valuable. Once you
> > >> start,
> > >> > others will join and momentum will build. That is how these things
> > work.
> > >> >
> > >> > I like DIGY's approach too, but the problem with it is that it is
a
> > >> > never-ending manual task. The theory behind the automated port is
> that
> > >> it
> > >> > may reduce the manual work. It is complicated, but once it's built
> and
> > >> > works, it will save a lot of future development hours. If it's built
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> > sufficiently general manner, it could be useful for other project
> like
> > >> > Lucene.Net that want to automate a port from Java to C#.
> > >> >
> > >> > It might make sense for that to be a separate project from
> Lucene.Net
> > >> > though.
> > >> >
> > >> > -T
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Scott Lombard <
> > lombardenator@gmail.com
> > >> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ok I think I asked the wrong question.  I am trying to figure
out
> > >> where
> > >> > to
> > >> > > put my time.  I was thinking about working on the automated
> porting
> > >> > system,
> > >> > > but when I saw the response to the .NET 4.0 discussions I started
> to
> > >> > > question if that is the right direction.  The community seemed
to
> be
> > >> more
> > >> > > interested in the .NET features.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The complexity of the automated tool is going to become very
high
> > and
> > >> > will
> > >> > > probably end up with a line-for-line style port.  So I keep asking
> > my
> > >> > self
> > >> > > is the automated tool worth it.  I don't think it is.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I like the method has been Digy is using for porting the code.
 So
> I
> > >> > guess
> > >> > > for me the real question is Digy where did you see 2.9.4g going
> next
> > >> and
> > >> > > what do you need help on?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Scott
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:20 PM
> > >> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave
port
> > >> > needed?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message