lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Troy Howard <>
Subject Re: Vote thread started on
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:02:32 GMT
Yes. I'm in the process of writing that proposal at this time. It will
include language in the project description that express our intent to
develop a C#/.NET idiomatic version of the library.

Please find the in-progress draft version at:


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Ben Martz <> wrote:

>  So perhaps the proposal should allow for a combination of a mostly
> automated baseline line-by-line port and the explicit provision that
> embraces drop-in (API compliant) .NET-specific replacements for specific
> classes?
> - Ben
>  ------------------------------
>    Troy Howard <>
> December 30, 2010 12:39 PM
> It's my opinion that we can basically commoditize an automated port
> which will fulfill the needs of the community, and allow the project
> to, at minimum, continue to release, in a timely fashion, direct ports
> of the Java Lucene releases...
> Meanwhile we can continue the efforts represented in Lucere, Lucille,
> and Aimee.Net to create an alternative API for Lucene.Net which may or
> may not include completely re-written code, depending on the
> specifics.
> I think both concepts can co-exist in a single project and that this
> will be the best way to move forward. If you followed the Lucere
> project, you'll see that my approach with TDD and Contract Driven
> Design was intended to facilitate just such an arrangement.
> Thanks,
> Troy

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