lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicholas Paldino <casper...@caspershouse.com>
Subject Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5
Date Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:54:17 GMT
Just one comment about providing better support for async all around:

This is something you have to build into the design; the synchronous invocations just wait
on the async versions.

The important thing is to get the async design and implementation right and then layer the
sync version on top.

- Nick

On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:30 AM, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <itamar@code972.com> wrote:

> 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
View raw message