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 Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:46:35 GMT
Nah, we rather focus on v3.6 and v4


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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