lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:00:14 GMT
Yes the real 2.9.4 is in the  trunk. 2.9.4g is currently neither 2.9.4 nor
3.0.3.
But having an intermediate tag/release could also be good before removing
deprecated methods.

DIGY



On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Scott Lombard <lombardenator@gmail.com>wrote:

> Digy,
>
> Should your 2.9.4g be renamed to 3.0 something and then be released in the
> future as a 3.0 release?  The current trunk could be released under the tag
> 2.9.4.
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:04 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> >
> > No no. It was just an example. As you already know, there are a lot of
> > changes in contrib codes related with those API changes in
> > Lucene.Net.2.9.4g core.
> > Therefore, I see no option like merging other that copying.
> >
> > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message