lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shannon Deminick <shan...@umbraco.dk>
Subject Re: State / Future of the Lucene.Net Project
Date Wed, 30 May 2018 02:16:20 GMT
@Shad the docs are in reasonable shape and I have time to progress these
further.

I'm actually happy to take the lead on getting any/all documentation in a
state where it's more usable than what we have today. I'll post on the dev
channel separately about this but I agree it would be easier to recruit
more devs to contribute if there was a more clear/concise website, docs,
and getting started guide.


On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:59 AM Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:

> Farhad,
>
> > 1. The current version of Lucene.Net is 3.0.3 which was released on
> October
> 10, 2012. I am assuming this was on par with the Java code of the same
> version.
>
> Correct.
>
>
> > 2. The current effort that you describe is targeting 4.8.0 and possibly
> 4.8.1 of the Lucene codebase.
>
> Correct. There have been some discussions about upgrading the project to
> 4.8.1, and there are only about 120 files that differ between the versions.
> We are somewhere in the middle now because a lot of the recent
> contributions were brought over from 4.8.1. The differences to the Lucene
> core library were significant, though and IMO it would be best to wait
> until we have released 4.8.0 before considering a full upgrade to 4.8.1.
> The performance benefits will probably be worth the relatively minor effort
> before upgrading to a higher major version of Lucene.
>
>
> > 3. The current Java version of Lucene is 7.3.1.
>
> Correct. However the hump we are just about over is the big one. There
> were major changes to the project structure from 3.x to 4.x and the project
> size also increased by more than a factor of 10. By contrast, the changes
> to the project structure are minor going forward. I tried getting a line
> comparison the same as I did between 4.8.0 and 4.8.1, but it was thrown off
> by the fact that code comments have been restructured and other changes
> that have no effect on the actual executable code. So it is hard to get a
> feel for how much change is there from the repo.
>
> That said, the structure and layout of the classes is easily more than 90%
> the same. I am confident the project can be upgraded to the latest version
> without going through a complete port again after the release by doing file
> by file comparisons and porting only the diff into Lucene.Net. I have
> outlined the procedure here:
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/174#issuecomment-251614795
>
> I don't see any real reason why the next jump couldn't be all the way to
> the latest Lucene version in a small fraction of the time it took to port
> 4.8.0 by changing the individual files and leaving the project structure
> relatively unchanged.
>
>
>
>
> > Are we going to attract a significantly larger community of users as we
> move to version 4.8.1?
>
> I would say that is a resounding yes. There have been several reports of
> bugs/performance issues in 3.0.3. Not to mention, we have heard lots of
> positive feedback about how much better the performance is (for the most
> part) from 4.8.0.
>
> The download count (of all versions) was averaging about 600 per day 2
> years ago. Now it is up to 950 per day. The bulk of the downloads are
> 3.0.3, but getting 4.8.0 out of pre-release will certainly change that.
>
>
> > We will also be competing with active projects like Elastic Search for
> .NET
> (NEST) project. Maybe low-level access to Lucene core is not that important
> anymore?
>
> This is a good point, and may be a factor in the number of contributions
> we have been getting. However, keep in mind the numbers that Stefan are
> throwing out there are CONTRIBUTIONS BY PMC MEMBERS, there have been
> several contributions by non PMC members over the past year. The download
> counts indicate the popularity of Lucene.Net as a dependency is growing
> significantly despite being stuck at 3.0.3.
>
> Another factor is that having an integrated solution will always
> outperform an HTTP API based platform such as Elastic Search, and for many
> that makes all the difference in the decision.
>
> Also, I noticed one other NuGet projects are now targeting Lucene.Net
> 4.8.0-beta00005:
> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Kalix.Leo.Lucene/11.0.10-alpha, which
> means there is another potential contributor out there.
>
>
> Another consideration: You don't really have to know much about Lucene or
> Java to be a part of the porting effort. Most of the work can be done with
> the help of Google or by searching the codebase to find out how other
> similar pieces of code were ported. At this stage in the game, we mostly
> just need people to thoroughly test, report, and fix bugs.
>
> Thanks,
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: farhad khalafi [mailto:farhad.khalafi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:59 PM
> To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> Cc: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: State / Future of the Lucene.Net Project
>
> Stefan,
>
> Thank you for your help in keeping this project alive up to this point and
> trying to re-ignite some interest in moving it forward.
>
> I have a few questions that will influence the extent of my possible
> involvement with this project.
>
> 1. The current version of Lucene.Net is 3.0.3 which was released on October
> 10, 2012. I am assuming this was on par with the Java code of the same
> version.
> 2. The current effort that you describe is targeting 4.8.0 and possibly
> 4.8.1 of the Lucene codebase.
> 3. The current Java version of Lucene is 7.3.1.
>
> As I am not very familiar with advanced features of each version, could you
> summarize what major enhancements are included as you move from 3.0.3 to
> 4.8.1 to 7.3.1
>
> The version numbers are abstract and don't tell much about feature gaps as
> we try to play catch with the Java version.
>
> Are we going to attract a significantly larger community of users as we
> move to version 4.8.1?
>
> What will be missing as compared to the current Java version?
>
> I fully appreciate the amount of work involved in porting this code even
> when using automated tools.
> I am just not sure that once the task is accomplished, the users will not
> dismiss it as an already "outdated version".
>
> We will also be competing with active projects like Elastic Search for .NET
> (NEST) project. Maybe low-level access to Lucene core is not that important
> anymore?
>
> Thanks again,
> Farhad
>
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-05-28, Alberto León wrote:
> >
> > > Me too, but please, make easy to prepare the environment, I love code
> by
> > I
> > > hate the sysadmin things
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > As I said in a different mail I'm afraid we lack hands, so I doubt
> > anybody will magically appear and streamline the build process.
> >
> > From what I understand building and running tests should work fine as
> > long as you've got .NET Core and Powershell installed in Windows - if
> > this is not your environment things become tricky. I'd recommend you try
> > building and if things don't work as expected ask on the dev list.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
>
-- 

Kind regards / Med venlig hilsen

Shannon Deminick

Director of Moon based operations


https://umbraco.com

Phone: +45 70 26 11 62

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