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] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:29:50 GMT
I forgot to mention, 2.9.4g implements IDisposable for many of the classes
that has a "Close()" method 
which can be thought as .Net friendly API.

DIGY





-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:05 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g


I don't see the g branch differing all that much from the line-by-line port.
All the g branch does is change some data types as generics, but line by
line the code the same once the generics are declared.  

I don't see 2.9.4g being any closer to a .NET style version than 2.9.4.
While it does generics use for list style variable types the underlying
classes are still the same and all of the problems with 2.9.4 not being .NET
enough would be true in 2.9.4g.   

I would have to refer to Digy on if it changes how an end user interacts
with Lucene.NET.  If it does not affect how the end user interacts with
Lucene.NET then I think we should merge it into the Trunk and go from there
on 3.0.3.  


Scott 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:28 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
> 
> 
> Any reason we can't continue this g branch and make it more 
> and more .net like? I was thinking about what we've expressed 
> at goals - we want a line by line port - it's easy to 
> maintain parity with java and easy to compare. We also want a 
> more .NET version - the g branch gets this started - although 
> it's not as .Net as people want (I think). 
> 
>  
> 
> What if we used the g branch as our .Net version and 
> continued to make it more .Net like? and kept the trunk as 
> the line by line? The G branch seems like a good start to the 
> more .Net version anyway - we might as well build off of that?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------------- > From: 
> digydigy@gmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > 
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:45:23 +0200 > Subject: RE: 
> [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > > but I 
> guess the future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is 
> becoming > more .NET like > > My intention while I was 
> creating that branch was just to make 2.9.4 a > little bit 
> more .Net like(+ maybe some performance). > I used many codes 
> from 3.0.3 Java. So it is somewhere between 2.9.4 & 3.0.3 > 
> But I didn't think it as a separate branch to evolve on its 
> own path. It > is(or I think it is) the final version of 2.9 
> > > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher 
> Currens [mailto:currens.chris@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 
> December 28, 2011 9:20 PM > To: 
> lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: 
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] 
> Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > One of the benefits of 
> moving forward with the conversion of the Java > Lucene, is 
> that they're using more recent versions of Java that support 
> > things like generics and enums, so the direct port is 
> getting more and more > like .NET, though not in all respects 
> of course. I'm of the mind, though, > that one of the larger 
> annoyances, Iterables, should be converted to > Enumerables 
> in the direct port. It makes it a pain to use it in .NET > 
> without it inheriting from IEnumerable, since it can't be 
> used in a foreach > loop or with linq. Also, since the direct 
> port isn't perfect anyway, it > seems a port of the IDEA of 
> iterating would be more in the spirit of what > we're trying 
> to accomplish, since the code would pretty much be the same, 
> > just with different method names. > > I sort of got off 
> topic there for a second, but I guess the future of > 2.9.4g 
> depends on the extent that it is becoming more .NET like. > 
> Obviously, while java is starting to use similar constructs 
> that we have > in .NET, it will never be perfect. Admittedly, 
> I haven't looked at 2.9.4g > in a little while, so I'm not 
> sure how much it now differs from 3.x, since > there's a 
> relatively large change there already. > > Thanks, > 
> Christopher > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Prescott 
> Nasser > wrote: > > > > > That's a great question - I know a 
> lot of people like the generics, and I > > don't really want 
> it to disappear. I'd like to keep it in parity with the > > 
> trunk. But I know we also have a goal of making Lucene.Net 
> more .Net like > > (further than 2.9.4g), and I don't know 
> how that fits in. We are a pretty > > small community and I 
> know everyone has some pretty busy schedules so it > > takes 
> us considerable time to make big progress. Trying to keep 
> three > > different code bases probably isn't the right way 
> to go. > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:02:03 
> +1100 > > > From: mitiaguin@gmail.com > > > To: 
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] 
> Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > > > > > I was browsing 
> "Roadmap" emails from November in Lucene developer list. > > 
> It > > > remains unclear in what state Lucene 3 porting is , 
> but my question more > > > about 2.9.4g . > > > Is it kind of 
> experimental dead end variation of 2.9.4 with generics ? > Am 
> > > > I right in classifying it as more .Net like 2.9.4 which 
> is unrelated to > > > roadmap Lucene 3 porting effort. > > 
> ----- > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1901 
> / Virus Database: 2109/4708 - Release Date: 12/28/11 > 	
> 	 	   		  

-----

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4710 - Release Date: 12/29/11


Mime
View raw message