lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <casper...@caspershouse.com>
Subject Re: Lucene v3.6
Date Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:43:03 GMT
As a somewhat related issue with .NET 4.0, are there plans to move to asynchronous calls at
any point for what are now blocking I/O operations?

Task<T> in 4.0 has made removing blocking I/O operations in C#/.NET 4.0 fairly simple
(although not as simple as C# 4.5 with async/await and core framework changes to support Task<T>).

I ask because I'm thinking the throughput and/or performance of of Lucene.NET would be increased
dramatically (by reducing waits on file-based I/O operations) but it would be a large architectural
change.

Perhaps it's something to keep in mind for the future.

 - Nicholas Paldino

On Jan 1, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Christopher Currens" <currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are issues that need to be discussed about the 4.0 port and being
> able to continue support of .NET 3.5.  I can only think of one example
> right now, but I've looked through most of the code for lucene 4.0, and
> there's a *very* heavy use of variance that would be difficult to maintain
> outside of .NET 4.x.  If you want a good example of this, check out the
> lucene.util.ast package and its usages.  This isn't the only area that uses
> both contravariance and covariance, but it's the only one I could think of
> off of the top of my head.
> 
> I started porting parts of it, just to see what could be done (nothing
> significant).  It's been a month or so since I worked on it, so my memory
> of what I found is foggy.  The variance was the biggest thing I saw that
> was an issue, but I think there were a few other things.  I'd have to look
> at it again to see.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Christopher
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:
> 
>> The general direction should be to put most of the efforts on a v4 port
>> (4.1 probably...) and to start finding pieces in the codebase we can easily
>> isolate and .NET-ify. Mostly readers, writers, structures and conversions.
>> 
>> Re git on apache - I believe you should ask infra.
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Christopher Currens <
>> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Don't think I've forgotten about this.  While I have no idea how git
>> under
>>> Apache looks like, I have a lot of comments on Lucene 3.6 (and 4.0) that
>> I
>>> need to discuss on this mailing list directly relating to the porting
>> work
>>> and the future direction of lucene.net.  I've had an email in my drafts
>>> folder for about 3 weeks now but this time of year has been so busy I
>>> haven't had a chance to finish it.  Soon, though, I hope.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christopher
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hey Guys -  I've been quietly working in the background on
>> administrative
>>>> stuff for a while. I really only have two things on my to-do list -  -
>>> What
>>>> does git under apache look like? I can't remember who asked this, but I
>>>> know I owe digging up the answer- Lucene 3.6 - planning, moving
>> forward (
>>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c).
>> Do
>>>> we just want to start picking things off and committing them? Are there
>>>> other refactoring issues we want to tackle with 3.6? We should make
>> jira
>>>> tickets and start tracking. Happy holidays everyone! ~Prescott
>> 


Mime
View raw message