lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <>
Subject Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:55:38 GMT
+1 for an ElasticSearch like service (embed able and REST enabled) would get my vote.

On Oct 1, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <> wrote:

> There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
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:
>> To:
>> 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 <> 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

View raw message