lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <>
Subject RE: Vote thread started on
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:32:08 GMT

In incubator we can probably rewrite the description of the project - but in the past we were
pushed from doing anything but a straight port becuase the description of the project was
"line by line port" - where a tool makes sense, and .NET specific contructs are basically
avoided becuase that wouldn't be a line by line port. We talked about using things like Enums
but we were shot down from this idea by someone...
I agree with you whole heartly about utilizing sharpen and jvm just to port the code. The
Lucere project was the idea of rewriting the java code to .Net, using standard constructs.
I think the goal for the ASF project was to minimize work needed to be done to upgrade to
new java things that come out. If we purse this direction, then every change needs to be manually
ported. I've already said I think that is do-able once we are on part with the latest java.

~Prescott Nasser

> Subject: RE: Vote thread started on
> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:24:32 -0500
> From:
> To:
> CC:
> I think it took be 5 "deletes" of this e-mail and complete rewrites to try to say this
in the best way possible:
> First off, Sharpen is a java tool (from the db4o SVN I found) - using sharpen to port
lucene to .net means that people now have to install a jvm on their computers in order to
contribute. While this may seem like it makes perfect sense in fact it is this type of requirements
that scares pure .net developers away. You cannot ask someone to install a bunch of tools
"outside" of their comfort zone in order to create a tool that works in their world. Furthermore,
it's also saying that now - not only do contributors need to know java and have a jvm, but
then they also need to know sharpen in order to make a c# product.
> Gentlemen, I would gladly contribute - I can assure you that I wouldn't be the best but
I would be happy to lend a hand - but speaking strictly for myself I don't see myself learning
2-3 new pieces of technologies when I feel that I should just be a good c# programmer to help
> Would it not make more sense, given the fact that we want to reduce work and make a quality
product that we become more selective about *what* goes through Sharpen and what can be hand-crafted?
IE: Do we really need to port the Java methods of writing to files and handling Threading?
What about WCF?
> Karell Ste-Marie
> C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:46 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on
> That is exactly what I would suggest. Sharpen looks like a great tool, since you can
customize it's behaviour. In fact, the only downside is that you have to customize it's behaviour
which requires a lot of upfront work.
> Thanks,
> Troy
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Prescott Nasser <> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the technology is there - no generic
porting tool will be 100%, it will always require pre/post processing. Sharpen is a pretty
good generic conversion tool.
> >
> > I agree in that I think we need to focus on a process utilizing a tool such as sharpen
and developing the pre/post processing clean up scripts that are specific to Lucene.
> >
> > ~Prescott
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message