lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:41:42 GMT
I'll work on that

And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code
porting than an automated tool to do that

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I
> wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we
> asked.
> On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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