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: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:29:44 GMT
Tremendously. The Codecs API is the biggest change, and there are many
more, including namespace changes.

I gave it some thought and I believe nuking master and starting fresh is
the best way to go. First step would be to actually do a line-by-line port
except for getters/setters and data structures, and then we can specialize
classes to use more advanced .NET features. I believe a custom Directory
implementation should be created in its own class, not instead of the
line-by-line port.

Starting fresh would help in refactoring bits of code as we do, and is much
quicker than comparing diffs when there's a lot of changes to account for.
We can copy-paste or reuse code from 3.0 when handling code that we know
hasn't changed too much.

I'd also push for revamping the test suite - making it use xunit and using
helper methods so we can copy-paste tests from Java and minimize the amount
of changes required. We don't really care about code quality there, we just
need the tests to pass.

After having a fully working port, we can dive in and replace inner parts
with .NET specific implementations, like better async support all around.

Thoughts?


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Nicholas Paldino <
casperOne@caspershouse.com> wrote:

> How much has it changed?  If its significant I'd suggest starting clean
> and taking advantage of .net specific features:
>
> Task<T> and async I/O on Directory
> Deferred execution with yield return/break with IEnumerable<T>
> Better support for generics
>
> The first item is really the big win; scalability can be improved by not
> having to block threads on I/O operations.
>
> - Nick
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I've been working with the 4.x Java code base for a while - the API has
> > significantly changed from 3.0 so the question is do we start clean or
> > replace parts?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes.  I think that's good.  We need to come up with a plan, though, and
> >> start distributing work.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nope, lets start dev'ing
> >>>
> >>> Lucene 4.2 work in master, 3.x in dedicated branches?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think we agreed pull requests got a jira ticket with the details and
> >>>> then we reviewed it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also lucene 3.6 would support 3.5 still, 4.0 would go 4.0
> >>>>
> >>>> Any issues?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: mherndon michael
> >>>> Sent: 2/20/2013 5:26 AM
> >>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5
> >>>>
> >>>> Did we ever agree on how to handle pull requests on github?  There are
> >> at
> >>>> currently least four pull requests on github.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also what is the official git repo now for Lucene.Net ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we moving forward on 4.0 and if so how do we want to proceed with
> >>> that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -M
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> >> itamar@code972.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I suppose all that is left now is to agree on a plan for moving
> >>> forward?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> >>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Repo is writable!> From: geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>> Subject: RE: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5
> >>>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:50:03 -0800
> >>>>>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hey itamar - I've been emailing private, its read only until
we
> >>>> approve
> >>>>>> it. Chris and I thought it looked good and I was waiting a bit
to
> >>> hear
> >>>>> from
> >>>>>> others.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ill put in to have them flip it to writable today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
> >>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko
> >>>>>>> Sent: 2/17/2013 3:11 AM
> >>>>>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Prescott, any updates on this? I can see they opened a repo
for
> >> us,
> >>>> but
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>> sure whats the status on this?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> >>>>> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5797. I
added
> >>> details
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>> the hook email. I'll keep you guy posted. I'm been MIA
-
> >> closing
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> yearly
> >>>>>>>> books for work, I should be through it in another week
and then
> >>>> back
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>>>> track and I'll join the conversation on the road map
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: bodewig@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET
3.5
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:24:58 +0100
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-24, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Troy Howard
<
> >>>>> thoward37@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The main thing is ensuring that we consider
the ASF git
> >> repo
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>> Lucene.Net
> >>>>>>>>>>> to be the primary source of truth (once
we move over to
> >> it)
> >>>> Any
> >>>>>> PRs
> >>>>>>>> on the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Github mirror will need to be merged back
into the ASF git
> >>>> repo.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We don't have to work against github. Actually,
perhaps we
> >>>> better
> >>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>> against an ASF's git repo and have it auto-mirrored
to
> >>> github.
> >>>>> The
> >>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>> git
> >>>>>>>>>> works, all you have to do to merge a PR is add
the other
> >> repo
> >>>> as
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> remote,
> >>>>>>>>>> fetch and merge. Github should detect that as
closing the
> >> PR
> >>> -
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> probably verify that with them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sounds great.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Either way, I would recommend setting up a hook
to email
> >> this
> >>>>> list
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> notifications about incoming PRs, just so everyone
is
> >>> notified.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The rest of Stefan's worries are all covered
by good
> >>> guidelines
> >>>>> on
> >>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> work with PRs / github tools - voting etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Probably yes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, how do we proceed?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Basically we ask the ASF's INFRA team (via JIRA)
to create a
> >>>>> writable
> >>>>>>>>> git repo for us.  It would probably be best if Prescott
as
> >>>> chairman
> >>>>>>>>> could drive this.  At one point in time projects
moving to
> >> git
> >>>> had
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> name a team member who'd be willing to help with
the
> >> migration.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stefan
> >>
>

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