lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:40:31 GMT
I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache
compatible.  LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though.

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
> Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> From: itamar@code972.com
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> 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
View raw message