lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Windows RT / WP8 Version
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:45:00 GMT
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