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: Windows RT / WP8 Version
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:13:53 GMT
I'm with Paul on this


On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com> wrote:

> I appreciate the idea of having it portable, but after going through most
> of the code myself with catching it up to 4.3 (still much work to be done),
> I can attest that it would be exceptionally difficult if not impossible to
> maintain an even partial port to PCL in the same codebase. Take a look at
> the Util.FST classes, or the Util.Packed classes, or any of the Codecs in
> 4.x to see what I'm talking about. I do not want to see Lucene.net get
> stuck in the dark ages due to trying to achieve PCL compatibility.
>
> If anyone is passionate about having a partial port of Lucene core to PCL
> (because I do not believe you can achieve a full port), I suggest spinning
> off a new project or keeping the source completely separate rather than
> filling the Lucene.net code with a bunch of #if statements and thus making
> it much more difficult for us to do line-by-line updates of the Java code
> in the future.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Prescott,
> >
> > You're right in regards to PCL and MonoTouch.  I have no idea what I was
> > thinking.  I seem to recall a year or so ago when you ran into that
> issue.
> >  I believe WP8 supports unsigned value types, so it may not be an issue
> if
> > WP7 isn't explicitly supported.
> >
> > Stefan,
> >
> > I'm prepared for it being an arduous task.  Most of the challenges you've
> > listed are addressed by using PCL, except for legacy technologies.  When
> it
> > comes to unsupported platforms, I think often times the only options is
> to
> > drop support for them when it comes to new code.  Like you mentioned, we
> > don't really hit the support level that log4net does, we've already made
> > the decision to not support .NET 3.5 in the 4.x versions of Lucene.
> >
> > I still think my biggest blocker against PCL is that it's not in
> > Express....I'd like to keep support for Express editions instead of
> > potentially blocking people from contributing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 2013-08-21, Christopher Currens wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've been thinking lately of doing a real push to have Lucene.Net
> > support
> > > > more platforms, specifically Windows RT and Windows Phone 8.  There
> are
> > > two
> > > > ways I can think of doing it, and each has its own specific
> advantages
> > > and
> > > > disadvantages.
> > >
> > > One thing I can tell you is that the release process can easily become
> a
> > > PITA either way.  At least if you want to extend it to platforms VS
> > > cannot cross-compile to OOTB.
> > >
> > > I've been the release manager of the last log4net release and am
> > > preparing to cut a new one, so memory is fresh.  log4net uses NAnt to
> > > build and builds for several platforms from the same codebase with
> > > defines (NET_4_0 and so on) controlling code-paths that need specific
> > > platform or language features.
> > >
> > > For each additional platform you add the release manager must be able
> to
> > > build for it - no matter which approach you take.  This might be
> trivial
> > > for some platforms as VS supports them today but not for others (say
> > > MonoTouch) or no longer tomorrow (say you still want to support .NET
> 2.0
> > > when VS 2015 drops support for it).
> > >
> > > In log4net's case keeping around a virtual machine running XP that can
> > > still build .NET 1.0 is the biggest hurdle.  As Lucene.NET doesn't
> > > strive to support old platforms as long as log4net does, this may not
> be
> > > as big of an issue.
> > >
> > > Of course we release sources, not binaries.  So you could say the RM
> > > only builds the stock .NET stuff and people who want to have a version
> > > for MonoTouch should build them from source - or you have different
> team
> > > members contribute binaries for different platforms much like the HTTPd
> > > project does.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> >
>

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