lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:33:36 GMT
There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy, I think they
stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo, although it would
be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would get my votes
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> 
> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) ,  a
> Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
> productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do a
> pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
> idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> 
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting directly
> > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork Lucene.Net,
> > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
> > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
> > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> >
> > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant offer
> > for development help. See below:
> >
> >
> > Dear Lucere team,
> >
> > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have project in
> > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly on
> > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), but
> > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common approach
> > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so
> > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
> > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
> > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to build
> > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this course.
> > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything in
> > best way.
> >
> > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing some
> > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in designing
> > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build in
> > that way.
> >
> > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
> > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and see if
> > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have 12
> > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they do, and
> > how will we coordinate their work?
> >
> > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't really
> > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> >
> > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
> > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some new
> > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group to do
> > that work?
> >
> > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an automated
> > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
> > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus on
> > that?
> >
> > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
> > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > remoteing model that was removed)?
> >
> > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more maintainable
> > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> >
> > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message