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: Lucene 4.0
Date Wed, 07 Aug 2013 04:19:22 GMT
Great

You can build you Query objects on your own to execute a search, you don't
actually have to use QueryParser for that


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com> wrote:

> Hey all, sorry it's been a little while, but I wanted to let you know that
> although I took a few weeks off from it, I now have a 4.3.1 equivalent
> Lucene.net core building and able to write a simple index in Lucene 4.2
> codec and read in things like the number of documents and whatnot. Since
> QueryParser has been moved to a separate module in Lucene Java 4.x, I
> haven't ported that yet so I haven't done a real search, and I only built
> the index using a quick port of KeywordAnalyzer which all those analyzers
> have also moved to another module. But this is definitely good progress and
> should be a launch point for finishing a 4.3/4.4 port.
>
> You can see my fork/branch here:
> https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net/tree/lucene_4_3_0 (note: like I
> said, only core builds now, no modules/tests build, so only open the
> Lucene.Net.Core.sln)
>
> I'm sure it's riddled with bugs, but I hope this can help kickstart the
> community into finishing the 4.3/4.4 port. Let me know if you have any
> questions, thanks!
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Paul, that's awesome. I will need some more time to go over this thread
> and
> > your work to give actual feedback, SUPER busy at the moment
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > My colleagues and I have made good progress on porting Lucene 4.3's
> core
> > > library before, during, and after the hackathon last week. We now only
> > have
> > > some remaining items in Search, Index, and Codecs namespaces (plus a
> few
> > > other minor ones here and there). I expect to be done by the end of the
> > > weekend. Analysis, Documents, Store, Util (except some FST and Packed),
> > and
> > > the root Codecs and Codecs.PerField namespaces are all now "done".
> > >
> > > Again, my goal is to only get a buildable, experimental build of
> > Lucene.net
> > > with 4.3.0 (now 4.3.1) compatibility. We are intentionally not porting
> > new
> > > javadoc comments or unit tests right now, due to the vast amount of
> code
> > > that needs to be written just to get it to compile. If this work ends
> up
> > > becoming a pull request, great, otherwise it should help accelerate a
> > port
> > > of 4.3.x since the bulk of the work on core will already be done and
> > > contributors can use it as a reference. And again, we're taking the
> > > pragmatic approach of porting class-by-class, namespace-by-namespace,
> > with
> > > the understanding that until we're done the project won't build.
> > >
> > > Once complete, I also will work on updating the Analyzers contrib
> module
> > > and porting the QueryParsers contrib module, which I feel should be
> > > included in the core NuGet package for Lucene.net as the core library
> is
> > > now (post-4.0) practically useless (or atleast not turn-key) without
> > them.
> > > You can check out the code on my fork/branch here:
> > > https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net/tree/lucene_4_3_0
> > >
> > > In particular, I'd like some feedback on my work on ByteBuffer,
> > > MemoryMappedFileByteBuffer, MMapDirectory, and NIOFSDirectory. For the
> > MMap
> > > support, I created a ByteBuffer subclass that uses .NET 4's
> > > MemoryMappedFile support which should emulate the Java nio stuff pretty
> > > well, but required some creative shuffling of the code to make it work
> > due
> > > to lifecycle management.
> > >
> > > I'll update again this weekend or next week, when we should have
> wrapped
> > up
> > > most of the main hacking on porting the core code.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marcos,
> > > >
> > > > That would be helpful. As far as I can tell, the 3.0 java code is
> only
> > on
> > > > SVN here, before the lucene and solr projects were bundled together:
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/branches/lucene_3_0/
> > > >
> > > > The SVN for 4.3 java is here:
> > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/lucene_solr_4_3/
> > > > And the GitHub for 4.3 java is here:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/tree/lucene_solr_4_3
> > > >
> > > > My fork/branch of Lucene.net for the 4.3 port is here:
> > > > https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net/commits/lucene_4_3_0
> > > >
> > > > My fork is the "upstream" fork for my team members, and i'm remote
> > > merging
> > > > their changes in from their forks while they fetch/merge from mine to
> > get
> > > > everyone else's changes, rather than using pull requests. James and I
> > > have
> > > > been working the past few days on the Util namespace ahead of
> tonight's
> > > > hackathon since that namespace is in common with the rest of the
> > > > namespaces. Tonight, we'll have at least 8 guys that I know of
> hacking
> > on
> > > > porting 4.3, each with a different namespace or part of a namespace.
> > > Since
> > > > we're going class-by-class, namespace-by-namespace, the project does
> > not
> > > > build as it is. Once we finish doing a translation of each file, then
> > > we'll
> > > > hammer out any remaining issues and get it to build again. I'm hoping
> > > that
> > > > we can get at least 75% done with Core tonight. Wish us luck!
> > > >
> > > > But one thing to keep in mind is it looks like much functionality has
> > > been
> > > > moved out of core into the contrib modules, especially around
> analysis,
> > > for
> > > > 4.0+. For example, there are no built-in analyzers in core anymore.
> So
> > > when
> > > > this is all done, we may want to include at least the analysis
> contrib
> > > > module in with the standard core NuGet package, because otherwise
> it's
> > > > practically useless unless you roll your own analyzer.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Marcos Lima <
> marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi everyone!
> > > >>
> > > >> Does someone know where can I find the 3.0.3 release from
> > Lucene(java)?
> > > >>
> > > >> I`ll compare the following major versions: 3.03, 3.6.2 and 4.3.0 and
> > > make
> > > >> the diff between then and get all changes between releases... I
> gonna
> > > >> publish it here soon. (If you think there is another important
> > release,
> > > >> let
> > > >> me know)
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul, are you dealing (i`m not sure about this word, sorry) with
> 4.3.0
> > > >> port
> > > >> for .Net on github (last email)?
> > > >>
> > > >> See you,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2013/6/10 Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks for the discussion points, Michael.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would vote for not worrying about trying to achieve portable
> > > >> > compatibility for WP8/WinRT/etc until *after* a port to 4.3+ is
> > > >> completed.
> > > >> > Otherwise it may delay the project and stall it further. That's
> just
> > > my
> > > >> > $0.02 based on my admittedly selfish need for 4.x features.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have started porting the changes from the core library (from the
> > > >> > java lucene_solr_4_3 branch) in my fork on github in a separate
> > > branch.
> > > >> > Since I need 4.3 ASAP, I am just going to keep going on my port
> > until
> > > >> > there's changes to pull from upstream to work from. Also due to my
> > > time
> > > >> > constraints, I am not fully documenting new methods that I'm
> adding.
> > > >> But if
> > > >> > anyone wants to pull/copy/reference my changes while porting,
> that's
> > > >> > awesome. My branch currently does not build as I'm primarily going
> > > >> > class-by-class, starting with the util namespace. Once we get the
> > ball
> > > >> > rolling on a community effort, I'll stop my rogue work and join
> in.
> > > But
> > > >> > hopefully my work will be useful to someone, if not as a pull
> > request
> > > >> then
> > > >> > as a reference. I'm also going to be holding a hackathon this week
> > > with
> > > >> my
> > > >> > colleagues where we're all going to work on the port. I'm
> comparing
> > > >> files
> > > >> > and making changes as necessary, rather than starting from
> scratch.
> > My
> > > >> > repo/branch is here:
> > > >> > https://github.com/paulirwin/lucene.net/tree/lucene_4_3_0
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Paul
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:16 PM, mherndon michael <
> > > >> > mherndon@michaelherndon.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > the guithub.com repo is a mirror to the git mirror that apache
> > > >> > maintains.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The was some work at one time to move the official svn
> repository
> > to
> > > >> > start
> > > >> > > using git one instead.  Was that actually finalized or not?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The Lucene.Net_4e (e for experimental) is an old branch to see
> > what
> > > >> kind
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > work was involved using a portable libraries project. Some of it
> > can
> > > >> > still
> > > >> > > be used but will need to be validated against the current
> version
> > of
> > > >> > Java's
> > > >> > > Lucene.  It was also using .net 4.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > clean branch vs current.     Its going to depend on what we
> > support.
> > > >> If
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > > support windows mobile 8, win RT, then the current code in trunk
> > > will
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > compile against those versions of the framework which would a
> > > >> frustrating
> > > >> > > starting point, then you couldn't even run tests, which would
> make
> > > >> taking
> > > >> > > patches very difficult.  Supporting those can almost mean larger
> > > gaps
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > design between Lucene.Net and its parent project.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Also the  structure has changed significantly between the
> branches
> > > and
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > side of the code base of Lucene 4 is bigger, uses Java 6, and
> > seems
> > > >> > > significantly different.  That doesn't mean you can't cherry
> pick
> > > >> stuff
> > > >> > > from the other tags/branches that would still work as is.  A
> clean
> > > >> branch
> > > >> > > would also make it easier to get our build / tool chain in order
> > as
> > > >> you
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > > then do them incrementally versus having to do all the stuff
> that
> > I
> > > >> did
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > the 3x branch which saps energy and desire to code.   It could
> > also
> > > >> make
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > easier to see which classes have been ported or not.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The major downside to a clean branch is extra work it requires
> and
> > > the
> > > >> > > start up cost in time and energy of getting it in order, which
> can
> > > be
> > > >> > > daunting / intimidating and lower morale. And generally you want
> > to
> > > >> use
> > > >> > > take your legacy code and refactor instead of in someways
> starting
> > > >> over.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Are we going to port lucene 4 or 4.3 ?   If so I can do
> something
> > > >> similar
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/LUCENENET/lucene-4x-port-progress.html#Lucene4xPortProgress-Lucene.NetCoreFolders
> > > >> > > where it tracks what needs to get ported / what has been ported.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What are we going to support in the next version?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Who is going to work on the next version?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What would make the most sense and what would invigorate the
> > > >> community to
> > > >> > > get involved more and lower the barrier to entry?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think those are the questions that would make a lot of the
> > > decisions
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > us so that we can get back to work on lucene.net.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Marcos Lima <
> > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Regarding the new branch, I'm a rookie with ASF projects...
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > The https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene.net/ and
> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net points to the same
> > > repository?
> > > >> > > (This
> > > >> > > > is new for me, pretty good) Which of them do you recommend
> (i'm
> > > used
> > > >> > with
> > > >> > > > SVN and its patterns).
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I'm checking the subversion right now.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I can see the branches/Lucene.Net_4e. I think this is a old
> > > branch,
> > > >> i`m
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > sure about its current status.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Will we wipe the current solution from /trunk and start a new
> > one?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 2013/6/6 mherndon michael <mherndon@michaelherndon.com>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > We may be forced to start with a clean/empty branch if
> people
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > want
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > attempt supporting lucene.net for mobile devices, win RT,
> > etc.
> > > >> The
> > > >> > are
> > > >> > > > > many
> > > >> > > > > classes that Lucene.net uses from the full framework that
> > would
> > > >> not
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > accessible in other versions of the .NET Framework.  It also
> > > might
> > > >> > > > require
> > > >> > > > > a design that differs even more from its parent project.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > It might be wise to poll what users most desire in the next
> > > >> version
> > > >> > > > through
> > > >> > > > > jira or user voice.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > inline
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Paul Irwin <
> > > >> pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Ah, I gotcha. Still getting used to git, I've been a TFS
> > guy
> > > >> for
> > > >> > so
> > > >> > > > > long
> > > >> > > > > > > :-)
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > So to recap, the branch_3x will be used for any patches
> or
> > > >> > anything
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > current 3.0.3 release, while trunk is what we will
> branch
> > > from
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > 4x
> > > >> > > > > > dev.
> > > >> > > > > > > Correct?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Yes - we can branch from it for 3.6 development if anyone
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > interested in that
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for pushing the Version.cs. What's the deal with
> > the
> > > >> > github
> > > >> > > > > sync?
> > > >> > > > > > > Who could diagnose that?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Not sure, Apache Infra, basically. Just use the apache
> repo
> > > for
> > > >> now
> > > >> > > > while
> > > >> > > > > > we get that sorted out.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Ok, haven't noticed that branch. Just use it then for
> > 3.x
> > > >> > > > > development.
> > > >> > > > > > > WRT
> > > >> > > > > > > > v4, yeah - just fork the repo and work on whatever
> > branch.
> > > >> When
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > > > > send
> > > >> > > > > > > us
> > > >> > > > > > > > PRs we will merge either to master or to a dedicated
> > repo.
> > > >> For
> > > >> > > now
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > doesn't really matter, thats the beauty of git.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > I pushed a new Version.cs file, you should see it on
> the
> > > >> apache
> > > >> > > > > servers
> > > >> > > > > > > > (github sync seems to be off)
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Paul Irwin <
> > > >> > > pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Itamar. I can certainly start work on 4.3
> > version
> > > >> of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > > Analysis
> > > >> > > > > > > > > namespace.
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Not sure the checkout command is what you intended
> --
> > > you
> > > >> > might
> > > >> > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > meant
> > > >> > > > > > > > > trunk instead of master, and that would create a new
> > > "3x"
> > > >> > > branch,
> > > >> > > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > > > > there's already a "branch_3x" and that would be
> > > >> misnamed...
> > > >> > so
> > > >> > > > > maybe
> > > >> > > > > > > > > checkout -b branch_4x trunk and start there aiming
> for
> > > >> lucene
> > > >> > > > 4.3.x
> > > >> > > > > > > > > compatibility?
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Also, does someone with commit rights to the
> upstream
> > > >> want to
> > > >> > > > > create
> > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > necessary Version.cs entries, so that we're not all
> > > >> trying to
> > > >> > > > > create
> > > >> > > > > > > them
> > > >> > > > > > > > > and dealing with a merge?
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Unless people here have a specific reason to use
> > > 3.6.2 I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > highly
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > recommed putting all the efforts we can towards v4
> > > >> > otherwise
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > never
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > make it...
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Fork the repo from apache servers or github (same
> > > repo,
> > > >> > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > > > > remotes)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > and checkout -b 3x -t origin/master , that should
> > work
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Paul Irwin <
> > > >> > > > > pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Itamar,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that from scratch is not the best way to
> > do
> > > >> it, I
> > > >> > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > > > thought
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > was the "decision" that was made from the
> > discussion
> > > >> > > > previously
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 4.x
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > work. An incremental approach will be much
> better.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I've created a branch of the branch_3x branch on
> > my
> > > >> fork
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > begin
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > working on bringing the Analysis namespace up to
> > > >> speed to
> > > >> > > > > 3.6.2.
> > > >> > > > > > If
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > anyone
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wants to pull it or just reuse parts once I'm
> > done,
> > > >> have
> > > >> > at
> > > >> > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > If I shouldn't have branched off the branch_3x
> > > branch,
> > > >> > > please
> > > >> > > > > let
> > > >> > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > what I should have branched from (trunk?)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Itamar
> > Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > > > > > > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Prescott for bringing this up again :)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, the problem is no one can really know
> what
> > > it
> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > > > take
> > > >> > > > > > > > until
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > have deep dived into the work, and even then
> > > >> decisions
> > > >> > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > change. I will strongly advise against
> starting
> > > from
> > > >> > > > scratch,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > although
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > think a lot in the current structure should
> > > change,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > its
> > > >> > > > > > going
> > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > much easier to change it in place, refactoring
> > > where
> > > >> > > > needed,
> > > >> > > > > > than
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > starting
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > all over again. Once we kicked this off I
> > > personally
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > happy
> > > >> > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > taking the analysis part of Lucene and porting
> > it,
> > > >> its
> > > >> > > > pretty
> > > >> > > > > > > much
> > > >> > > > > > > > > self
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contained.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Re 3.6.2 work - you can just do that on a fork
> > and
> > > >> send
> > > >> > > us
> > > >> > > > > PRs,
> > > >> > > > > > > its
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > much
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > more straight forward than the v4 upgrade
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Marcos, porting class by class is the fastest
> > way
> > > >> to do
> > > >> > > > this,
> > > >> > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > concentrate on .NETifying and optimizing using
> > > .NET
> > > >> > > > > constructs.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think the way to go is create a
> > > branch
> > > >> out
> > > >> > > of
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > current
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > git
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > master HEAD and label it "3.x", and start
> > working
> > > on
> > > >> > > master
> > > >> > > > > > > > towards a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 4.3
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > compatible version. The actual port should be
> > > using
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > process
> > > >> > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ensures
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > all Java classes are ported with their tests,
> > and
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > > tests
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > pass -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > but I'm against committing any Java code to
> our
> > > >> > > > repositories.
> > > >> > > > > > The
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > process
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > should probably be working on classes in some
> > > order
> > > >> > > > > > > > (alphabetically,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > core classes first) and getting each class to
> > > >> compile
> > > >> > > > before
> > > >> > > > > > > moving
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > forward. I don't mind about the project not
> > being
> > > >> > > > compilable
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > month
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > two.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Once this is done a process of .NETifying and
> > > >> proofing
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > started, at which point we will already have a
> > > >> working
> > > >> > v4
> > > >> > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > will be easier to keep up with the Java
> project.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > The first step IMO is to stabilize the test
> > suite
> > > so
> > > >> > > tests
> > > >> > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > less be copied and pasted (e.g. implementing
> > > >> Java-like
> > > >> > > > > > > assertEquals
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > etc; I find xUnit to be much easier to work
> with
> > > >> than
> > > >> > > > > NUnit). I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > did
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > some work there but there's still a lot to do.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I can't dedicate time myself at
> > this
> > > >> > point,
> > > >> > > > > but I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > back in business in August, at which point I
> can
> > > >> > dedicate
> > > >> > > > > > several
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > hours a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > week. Until then I'll be happy to watch
> closely
> > > and
> > > >> > even
> > > >> > > > > > > coordinate
> > > >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > work to some extent.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Marcos Lima <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > It really sounds good to me, this is a kick
> > > start
> > > >> > =). I
> > > >> > > > > > haven't
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > contributed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yet, but I would like to help you all to get
> > > this
> > > >> job
> > > >> > > > done.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm completely agree with Paul and Prescott.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that there is a high commitment for
> > keep
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > retrocompatibility
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucene. Does Java Lucene API gets big
> changes
> > > >> every
> > > >> > > > > release?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the Lucene.Net a port from a stable
> version
> > > >> from a
> > > >> > > > > Lucene
> > > >> > > > > > > > > version,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > right? If the Lucene API gets only minor
> > changes
> > > >> > every
> > > >> > > > > stable
> > > >> > > > > > > > > release
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > (or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep most of its source-code), we could
> > compare
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > versions,
> > > >> > > > > > > > check
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > differences and bring them to Lucene.Net.
> > > Again, I
> > > >> > > > haven't
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > contributed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yet, so I don't know how it is (just an
> idea).
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's your approach for implement simple
> > > >> performance
> > > >> > > > > > > > improvements
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > (without
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > adding references or changing methods
> > > signatures)?
> > > >> > Does
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > done,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > or "follow the java version only"?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/6/6 Paul Irwin <pirwin@feature23.com>
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just an "outsider" suggestion as I
> > > >> haven't
> > > >> > > > > > > contributed
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet, although I will definitely help with
> > the
> > > >> 4.x
> > > >> > > work
> > > >> > > > > as I
> > > >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > vested
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > interest in seeing that get completed. I
> > think
> > > >> > there
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > person
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or perhaps two) guiding what the
> structure
> > > and
> > > >> > > > workflow
> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > > > > look
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > avoid chaos. If the 4.x work is going to
> be
> > > >> > starting
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > > > scratch
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fresh port, that person should set up the
> > > >> project,
> > > >> > > get
> > > >> > > > > > > > everything
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > going
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > source control, create the folder
> structure,
> > > >> maybe
> > > >> > > stub
> > > >> > > > > out
> > > >> > > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > classes,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. Then divide and conquer with anyone
> > > >> interested
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > contributing,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps by namespace.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea of throwing the java code
> in
> > > >> there
> > > >> > so
> > > >> > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I can work on Lucene.Net.Documents,
> > > >> > > > > > > Lucene.Net.Analysis,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucene.Net.Store -- or any others, those
> are
> > > >> just
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > ones
> > > >> > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > > > > most
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with the inner workings. Tell me
> > what
> > > >> to
> > > >> > do
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > I'll
> > > >> > > > > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on my fork.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Prescott
> > > Nasser
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey guys -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know I've been MIA a little while. We
> > > have a
> > > >> > > board
> > > >> > > > > > report
> > > >> > > > > > > > due
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > soon
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think it prudent that we advise them
> that
> > we
> > > >> seem
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > stalled
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhat.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've got a few low hanging items out of
> > of
> > > >> jira
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > been
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > responsive
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on the mailing list to community
> > questions,
> > > >> but I
> > > >> > > > don't
> > > >> > > > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything to move forward with 4.0.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To that end - I'd like to *try* and
> start
> > us
> > > >> back
> > > >> > > up
> > > >> > > > > > moving
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the best way to accomplish this? If
> we
> > > took
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > java
> > > >> > > > > > > > lucene
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 4.0
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > committed that java to our branch and
> then
> > > >> just
> > > >> > let
> > > >> > > > > > people
> > > >> > > > > > > > pull
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > down
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and being changing / modifying is that
> one
> > > >> way to
> > > >> > > > maybe
> > > >> > > > > > > make
> > > >> > > > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > progress?
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~P
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marcos Lima
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Software Developer/Tech Lead
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Marcos Lima
> > > >> > > > Software Developer/Tech Lead
> > > >> > > > marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> --
> > > >> Marcos Lima
> > > >> Software Developer/Tech Lead
> > > >> marcoslimagon@gmail.com
> > > >> tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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