lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Fri, 02 Nov 2012 19:46:03 GMT
Well, unfortunately, this guy never got back to me even though I followed
up a couple of times.

Sorry to get everyone all excited :)

Good news is, we got a bunch of focus on what we *could* develop if we had
more people involved, so maybe if we just find more people we can get those
project rolling. Might be a good idea to create a wiki of "Things We'd Like
To Pursue" describing all these various projects, so potentially interested
developers could pick from that list and offer to help.

-T

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message