lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Oren Eini (Ayende Rahien)" <aye...@ayende.com>
Subject Re: Lucene v3.6
Date Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:13:37 GMT
Just to remind you, 3.5 came out in *2007*
That is six years ago, and long enough to require 4.0 (came out in 2010, 3
years ago)

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>wrote:

> Honestly I think we should completely drop .NET 3.5 support. If we had more
> time and more committers that may would have been a nice thing to have, but
> given the current amount of resources that we have, we should really put
> everything we've got into taking the largest strides we can towards a
> proper release conforming to the latest Java Lucene.
>
> There's enough people using .NET 4 already anyway, and whoever doesn't will
> either move soon or could use the .NET 3.5 version of Lucene 3.1. IMO the
> penalty of supporting both or not using .NET4 features because of it
> doesn't worth it.
>
> Having said that, I'm all for porting Lucene 4.1 to .NET with .NET specific
> approaches, such as the async API, getters/setters syntax, lambdas etc.
> This has to be done in a way that will still allow us to keep up to date
> with the current code-base - meaning that would need to be quite a loud
> process.
>
> I assume that would require a vote?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > I would like to add async/await, but I think adding a MMapDirectory,
> first,
> > is more important, and also something we could do now for the 3.x
> versions
> > of lucene.  I know we've looked at it before (LUCENE-425, I think?), and
> it
> > was turned down because it had poor performance.  I've tested a quick
> port
> > that I wrote and it performs the same under light load (8 threads) as it
> > does under heavy load (250 threads), able to complete 6000 queries in 74
> > seconds.  It performs the same as SimpleFSDirectory when it comes to
> light
> > load, but the SimpleFSDirectory performs horribly under heavy load, where
> > the 250 threads querying 6000 times total took about 160 seconds.
> >
> > Another problem with supporting both .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0, is that it
> > makes it more difficult in some respects to add things like methods that
> > return Task<T>, since it's not present in 3.5.  I think we need to
> maintain
> > two separate ports, a 3.x branch and a 4.x branch, although we don't
> have a
> > committer base that is active enough to do that.  The 3.x branch could
> > support .NET 3.5 and 4.0, where the 4.0 branch would only support .NET
> 4.0.
> >  If you look at the differences between 3.0.3 and 3.1, there are huge
> > performance optimizations that have been done, and to not give those to
> > .NET 3.5 users seems to be a wasted opportunity, in my opinion.  A lot of
> > the difficulties that come with porting Lucene 4.0 into .NET 3.5 come in
> > the later versions of the 3.x branch, probably around 3.5 or 3.6.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <
> > casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message