lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:47:57 GMT
Chris,

Regarding release schedule and the amount of work to accomplish
porting... What if we had 20 developers working on the project?

It's likely that by changing what we're doing, we'll attract more
people to work on the project and thus these concerns (which are
perfectly valid concerns if you're attempting to port the entire
library as a one or two person effort, as George, DIGY and you have
done) will no longer be relevant.

If the *volume* of work is a problem, then a reasonable solution is to
scale up the quantity of devs on the project and get organized enough
to keep them all productive. I'm certain that moving away from the
line-by-line port will cause more developers to be interested in
working on it. No one wants to do that kind of code and then have to
look at the product of their work and still be annoyed by the API.
This is essentially *exactly* where things were a year ago when the
project was about to die and this is why.

When I started up the Lucere project in response to these problems, I
was flooded with devs offering to help, to the extent that I couldn't
keep up with it and had to just start telling people we didn't need
any more help. There is no reason that the same thing couldn't happen
here.

Thanks,
Troy


On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Christopher Currens
<currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, my desires for this project seem to change with the progress
> that we make on it.  What I mean, is that what I want right now, will
> likely be different from what I will want once we've released a few more
> versions.  What I KNOW I want right now:
>
> I want the line-by-line port to continue, but in respects of the API, I
> want things that "just don't make sense(tm)" in .NET to change.  By that I
> mean removing Close() and properly implement the IDisposable pattern.
>  Also, the Java iterator has a perfect .NET analog, IEnumerable.  The code
> can essentially stay the same, but it enables real usage in .NET.
>  Fortunately, a great deal of 3.0.3 has already been moved over to
> generics, so I'm actually concerned less with that.  I want .NET
> style-naming, and I want CLS compatibility where possible, at least
> allowing for use in case-insensitive languages.
>
> When the project started, I didn't want a line-by-line port to continue,
> but once I touched every single part of this codebase that I understood how
> large this project is. I've realized that with the amount of time that
> everyone has been able to put into this project, I can't see a .NET version
> being made until it's up to date with Java.  Maybe I'm being pessimistic,
> maybe I'm not.  I'm not trying to call anyone out or blame anyone, we all
> have other jobs, but the amount of time that can be spent vs the amount of
> work a .NET centric re-write would take, just doesn't seem possible,
> considering the goals mention, of trying to keep up with Lucene.
>
> I think it would be more likely that a goal like that would succeed, if the
> codebase were caught up with java, and as the .netification was being done,
> any features, bugfixes, changes, or whatever would be immediately obvious.
>  I care very much about the index formats being the same, as well as the
> query syntax, and think a search done in java against an index should
> behave the exact same way in .NET.  I'm afraid that will the amount of
> effort it would take to do it now, when we're already behind, would cause
> the project to end up stagnating, like it did before, which I'm committed
> to not let happen.
>
> That being said, if everyone else disagrees with me, that is absolutely
> fine.  If no one would be against it, I would ask that I could work on a
> line-by-line port on my own, in a separate branch, if no one else wanted
> to.  For me, I think people want a) performance and b) the latest version
> with bug fixes.  That's what I DO want out of this project, since we're
> using it in ours.  I don't have exact benchmarks, but the performance of
> the 3.0.3 branch is much better than 2.9.4, from indexing to searching.  I
> should also mention that 2.9.4 introduced a memory leak that was not
> present in 2.9.2, and in 3.0.3, this memory leak no longer exists.  It is
> also more memory friendly.
>
> I don't think that the line-by-line port hurts the performance of
> Lucene.NET as much as it does annoy the crap out of everyone.  I'm
> seriously annoyed that I can't enumerate over Terms or TermDocs, without
> that terrible Next() and HasNext() crap.  That's not to say that moving
> from a line-by-line port won't increase performance, of course. :)  I'm
> definitely not against changing the API to facilitate a more .NET
> experience.
>
> That's what I want.  If no one else wants it, that's okay.  If we decide to
> not have the line-by-line port an official part of Lucene.NET, that's fine
> too, I'm not going to stop working on it, I would likely wind up working on
> it outside this project.  However, I think it's valuable to have as an
> official part of our releases, and I like to think its something the
> community wants, since I believe it would allow a faster release schedule
> than our own interpretation of a Lucene library.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I completely agree with Michael's mentality on thinking of this as a
>> business and coming from the perspective of "what will wow our
>> customers" ...
>>
>> I also completely agree with Prescott, that we just need to get down
>> to brass tacks and say what we want it to be specifically and
>> subjectively.
>>
>> Here's what I want:
>>
>> * I want an extremely modern .NET API full of injection points where I
>> can pass lambdas, use IEnumerable<T> and all that System.Linq
>> provides, interfaces for everything, as well as excellent unit test
>> coverage.
>> * I want to write *very* minimal code to accomplish basic tasks
>> * I want an average .NET developer be able to intuitively understand
>> and use the library with Intellisense as their only documentation
>> * I want performance that meets or exceeds Java Lucene
>> * I want no memory leaks
>> * I want no "surprises" in general
>> * I want minimal I/O
>> * I want any execution that can be deferred or optimized out to be
>> deferred or optimized out
>> * I want any data that could be large in size to be streamable
>> * I want no pointless unavoidable limitations on scale... and I want
>> to be able to horizontally distribute searching and indexing with ease
>> * I want every feature that Java Lucene's latest version has (and then
>> some)
>> * I want the index formats to be compatible with every other "Lucene"
>> out there in whatever language and I want the query language to work
>> identically across all of them.. That is to say given query Text "X"
>> and index "Y" you will always get result set "Z" from every
>> implementation of Lucene. Because when I have to get to my data via
>> Python, Java, C++, Ruby or whatever, I want everything to just work.
>> * I want to know which clauses in my query caused the result hit and
>> to what degree, without having to incur a huge performance hit
>> * I want real-time updates without having to do a little dance and
>> wave my hands to get it to work
>> * I want to get a new major version of the library roughly once or
>> twice a year and I want to be very impressed by the features in the
>> new version. I want bug fixes rolled out on a quarterly basis (at
>> minimum) between those major versions.
>> * I want to be able to trace or step-debug the execution of a search
>> or indexing process and not think "WTF" constantly. Some of that code
>> is extremely obtuse.
>> * I want the query parser to be generated from a PEG grammar so that I
>> can easily generate one in other languages
>>
>> ... and much much more. I didn't even get into things like being able
>> to create custom indexes that use something other than strings for the
>> inversion product, decorating my POCO's properties with attributes
>> like [Field("Description")] and just saying "Store", better query
>> expansion, and blah blah blah.  :)
>>
>> And I agree with Prescott on this one: I don't care *at all* about
>> Java, other than porting code out of it so that it can run on .NET. I
>> hate Java, but I love a lot of the libraries written in it. I feel
>> that the JVM is an inferior runtime to the CLR and the Java language
>> is like C#'s retarded cousin. I'll gladly write a new book on the new
>> API and publish it for free online, so people don't have to read
>> "Lucene in Action" to learn Lucene.Net. I'll gladly spend the time it
>> takes to understand a changeset from the Java project and the mentally
>> model what they were trying to accomplish by it and then re-engineer
>> the change to apply to our library.
>>
>> Basically, I don't want to limit the project to a line-by-line port at
>> all. I also don't want to piss people off and destroy the project in
>> the process. Soo... I'm flexible as well. :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Troy
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Someone has to take a stand and call out what they prefer - rather than
>> shooting out all the alternatives, we need to start voicing our opinions of
>> which direction we need to go. I'll get us started: I want to see something
>> that is more .NET like, I want to see something that can run on the phone,
>> xbox, pc, mono, etc. I want to use the latest and greatest .NET has to
>> offer.  I do care that we keep the index files 100% compabitible. I also
>> care that we try to keep up with Java in feature set and extras
>> (contrib's). I couldn't care less about keeping the API in line with java.
>>   I don't really care about the line by line - but others in the past have
>> said they did. My energy isn't really behind keeping that in line but I'll
>> help maintain it if that is what the community really wants. But I agree
>> with Troy - there are lots of options if you want the Java Lucene avaliable
>> in .Net That's my feeling - but at the same time, I realize we are a small
>> community, and if we don't really agree with what we want to do, then we
>> are SOL - I'm FLEXIBLE if others really want something or feel we should do
>> something.  ~P
>> >
>> >  > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:09 -0500
>> >> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
>> >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
>> >>
>> >> Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business owners,
>> community
>> >> builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a second.
>> >>
>> >> You have limited resources: time, budget, personnel, etc.
>> >>
>> >> What is our two biggest metrics of success for this product?
>> >>
>> >> My guess is adoption and customer involvement (contributing patches,
>> >> tutorials, tweets, etc).  Most likely both are those are going to be
>> >> carried by .NET developers as your inside promoter of Lucene.NET.
>> >>
>> >> So what is going to wow them? bring them the most value?  What can we
>> >> provide so that it makes their job easier, cost effective, and lets get
>> >> home faster to their lives or significant other?  What is a break out
>> niche
>> >> that Lucene.Net could have over Solr/Lucene?
>> >>
>> >> What is going to make an average developer more willing to grow the
>> >> community and contribute?  What would encourage them to give up their
>> free
>> >> time to do so?
>> >>
>> >> I would approach the answer from this angle rather than continue to talk
>> >> about it from a developer/committer perspective as we keep going in
>> >> circles. You're not going to be able to please everyone, so lets figure
>> out
>> >> was is going to deliver the most value to .NET developers and go from
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> - michael
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rory Plaire <codekaizen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The other option for people not wanting a line-by-line port is to just
>> >> > stick with whichever the last version that had a line-by-line
>> >> > transliteration done to it. This is done in a number of projects
>> where new
>> >> > versions break compatibility. 2.9.4 is certainly a nice release...
>> >> >
>> >> > -r
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Thinking about it, I should make myself more clear regarding why
I
>> >> > > brought up IKVM again, just so no one gets the wrong idea about
my
>> >> > > intentions there...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I only mentioned it as a justification for dropping line-by-line
>> >> > > compatibility and as an alternative for people who really care
about
>> >> > > that. As we discussed previously, IKVMed Lucene is not Lucene.Net
>> in a
>> >> > > lot of important material ways. We are already deviating
>> significantly
>> >> > > from Java Lucene even with the "mostly line by line" approach.
>> Compare
>> >> > > Lucene.Net 2.9.4 and IKVMed Java Lucene 2.9.4. They are very
>> different
>> >> > > user experiences on a lot of levels (licensing, packaging, data
>> types
>> >> > > used, etc).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > But it's a *reasonable alternative* when a high-degree of
>> consistency
>> >> > > with Java Lucene is important to the end user and by pointing
to
>> IKVM
>> >> > > as our answer to those users, we are free to move forward without
>> that
>> >> > > concern.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That means, supposing we move away from Java significantly, as
a new
>> >> > > end user looking to employ Lucene in their .NET product, they
can
>> >> > > choose between IKVM Lucene (identical API to Java, can use the
>> latest
>> >> > > Java build, performs well, may have some problems with licensing
and
>> >> > > packaging) and Lucene.Net (different API but hopefully one that
is
>> >> > > more palatable to .NET users so it'd be easy to learn, perfoms
>> better
>> >> > > than IKVM, but has a dev cycle that lags behind Java, possibly
by a
>> >> > > lot).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Existing users who like who Lucene.Net as it is now, may feel
>> >> > > alienated because they would be forced to choose between learning
>> the
>> >> > > new API and dealing with a slow dev cycle, or adapting to IKVM
which
>> >> > > could be very difficult or impossible for them. Either one would
>> >> > > require a code change. But of course, we run this risk with any
>> change
>> >> > > we make to what we are doing. I think a greater risk is that the
>> >> > > project lacks direction.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Anyway, it's just one idea/talking point towards the end goal
of
>> >> > > getting the general topic off the table completely.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Troy
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > > Apologies upfront: another long email.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > My most firm opinion on this topic is that, as a community,
we
>> spend
>> >> > > > too much time on this discussion. We should just simply commit
to
>> one
>> >> > > > or the other path, or both, or some middle ground, or just
commit
>> to
>> >> > > > not discussing it anymore and go with "whatever code gets
written
>> and
>> >> > > > works is what we use" and leave it up to the discretion of
the
>> coder
>> >> > > > who is actually spending time improving the product. Obviously
the
>> >> > > > last option is the worst of them.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > My view of our current roadmap is/was:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 1. We'd maintain basic line-by-line consistency through the
2.x
>> >> > > > releases. But 3.X and beyond were open to changing the API
>> >> > > > significantly. We are committed to changing the API and internal
>> >> > > > implementations in order to improve performance and developer
>> >> > > > experience on .NET, but haven't yet had made a plan for that
(eg,
>> no
>> >> > > > spec for a new API).
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2. We'd try to automate the porting process so that it was
>> repeatable
>> >> > > > and easy to keep up with (or at least easier) and maintain
a
>> >> > > > line-by-line port in a branch. That means the .NET version
would
>> >> > > > ultimately be a very different product than the line-by-line
port
>> and
>> >> > > > we'd be creating two separate but related products but where
>> possible,
>> >> > > > share code between them. Patching the line-by-line product
from
>> Java
>> >> > > > would be easier and faster than patching the .NET product
and so
>> they
>> >> > > > may end up with different release schedules.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It seems that effort on improving automation of the port
has
>> tapered
>> >> > > > off. As anyone who has done any of the porting from commit
patches
>> >> > > > from Java knows, a good portion of that work can be automated
with
>> >> > > > find/replace but substantial portions and certain scenarios
is the
>> >> > > > current code definitely cannot be and probably will never
be able
>> to
>> >> > > > be fully automated.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > While I have been advocating "doing both" and trying to find
a
>> >> > > > strategy that makes sense for that, another option is to
just
>> >> > > > officially drop any concern for line-by-line consistency
with
>> Java. A
>> >> > > > justification for that is simple: IKVM provides this already.
The
>> >> > > > licensing allows use in commercial apps and it's performance
is
>> close
>> >> > > > to the same, so, AFAIK it's a viable replacement for a
>> line-by-line
>> >> > > > version of Lucene.Net in just about any context as long as
no one
>> is
>> >> > > > modifying IKVM itself. I don't think it's unreasonable to
suggest
>> to
>> >> > > > people who want a line-by-line version to use IKVM instead
of
>> >> > > > Lucene.Net.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > So, if we use that perspective and say that the need for
a .NET
>> usable
>> >> > > > line-by-line version of Lucene is already available via IKVM,
why
>> >> > > > would we bother handcoding another one? It makes more sense
to
>> focus
>> >> > > > our valuable hand coding work on making something that *improves*
>> upon
>> >> > > > the .NET development experience. It may cause us to be slow
to
>> >> > > > release, but for good reason.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > So it seems to me we have the following primary agenda items
to
>> deal
>> >> > > with:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 1. Make an official decision regarding line-by-line porting,
>> publish
>> >> > > > it and document our reasoning, so that we can end the ambiguity
>> and
>> >> > > > circular discussions
>> >> > > > 2. If line-by-line porting is still part of our plan after
we
>> >> > > > accomplish Agenda Item #1, resume work on improving automation
of
>> >> > > > porting, creating scripts/tools/etc and document the process
>> >> > > > 3. If having a different API for .NET is still part of our
plan
>> after
>> >> > > > we accomplish Agenda Item #1, spec those API changes and
>> associated
>> >> > > > internal changes required and publish the spec
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > And to drive home the point I made in my first sentence:
If had
>> >> > > > already accomplished those three agenda items, the time I
just
>> spent
>> >> > > > typing this email could have been spent working on Lucene.Net.
We
>> need
>> >> > > > to get to that point if we want to maintain any kind of
>> development
>> >> > > > velocity.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > Troy
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> >> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> I dont think at the end of the day we want to make just
cosmetic
>> >> > > changes. We also have the issue of same name different casing
which
>> needs
>> >> > > to be fixed - but it's not clear how to manage that without some
>> large
>> >> > > adjustments to the API.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> >> > > >> ________________________________
>> >> > > >> From: Troy Howard
>> >> > > >> Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
>> >> > > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >> > > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> My vote goes to merging the two:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g to 3.X development,
using
>> generics
>> >> > > >> where possible, Disposable vs Close, and exposing *additional*
>> APIs
>> >> > > >> for generics (but leaving the existing old ones) to enable
the
>> >> > > >> underlying performance improvements the generics offer.
Also,
>> expose
>> >> > > >> IEnumerable<T> implementations vs Java style
>> enumerables/iterators.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> If we are only adding to the existing and making relatively
minor
>> >> > > >> changes to enable generics, updating/maintenance should
be
>> relatively
>> >> > > >> easy and it won't break anyone's code.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Thanks,
>> >> > > >> Troy
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Prescott Nasser <
>> >> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >>> I agree its a matter of taste. I'd vote continue
with g and
>> evolve it
>> >> > > to where we want a .net version to be. What do others think?
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>> >> > > >>> ________________________________
>> >> > > >>> From: Digy
>> >> > > >>> Sent: 12/29/2011 1:16 PM
>> >> > > >>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> >> > > >>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and
2.9.4g
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> When I started that "g" branch, I had no intention
to change
>> the API,
>> >> > > but at
>> >> > > >>> the end it resulted in a few changes
>> >> > > >>> like StopAnalyzer(List<string> stopWords),
>> >> > > >>> Query.ExtractTerms(ICollection<string>) etc.
>> >> > > >>> But I think, a drop-in replacement will work for
most of the
>> >> > Lucene.Net
>> >> > > >>> users (Of course some contribs have been also modified
>> accordingly)
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Changing arraylists/collections with generic counterparts,
>> >> > > GetEnumerator's
>> >> > > >>> with foreach, AnonymousClass's with
>> >> > > >>> Func<> or Action<>'s and Fixing LUCENENET-172
are things most
>> people
>> >> > > would
>> >> > > >>> not notice.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> This "g" version includes also some other patches
that were
>> fixed for
>> >> > > >>> .GE.(=>) Lucene3.1 (Which? I have to rework on
my commits)
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> So, there isn't much change in API, more changes
for developers
>> and
>> >> > > more
>> >> > > >>> stable code(At least I think so, since I use this
"g" version in
>> >> > > production
>> >> > > >>> env. for months without any problem. For short, 2.9.4g
is a
>> superset
>> >> > of
>> >> > > >>> 2.9.4 in bugfix level)
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> As a result, creating a new branch for .Net friendly
Lucene.Net
>> or
>> >> > > >>> continuing on this branch is just a matter of taste.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> 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