lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karell Ste-Marie" <>
Subject RE: Proposal Stage: Net Idiomatic Api Version
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:32:45 GMT

I completely agree - upon reading my last post it lacked a critical
component to actually bring some value to the conversation which you
mentioned. The USING keyword is key, perhaps as Robert mentioned it may
not be in the best of lights given the context of the example but that
is indeed how it should be used in the .NET framework.

Perhaps the documentation for Lucene.NET can include examples that
demonstrate the use of some of the expensive classes implemented as
Singletons - perhaps even code that up for the client as part of the
library itself (or in code examples). Clumsy coders would then not be
able to "mess up" the performance of Lucene.NET as much as they could
given their broad control over some of these objects and their lifetime.

Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Mateja [] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal Stage: Net Idiomatic Api Version

Robert... good points all.  I especially agree that basing initial
idiomatic work on 3.0+ makes sense (indeed, I believe this is what
Lucere.Net had agreed to do.)

Use of IDisposable can certainly lead to worst practices concerning
IndexReader / IndexWriter objects.  However, the IDisposable pattern (if
implemented correctly... see, and Framework
Design Patterns book mentioned earlier), really is the best way (in
.Net) to ensure proper handling of both unmanaged resources, and
stateful managed resources.

I think a good combination of documentation and examples could do much
to discourage worst practices.  In some cases, the sample 'using' code
you refer to might be appropriate... though in most the lifetime of an
IndexWriter object might be controlled at a higher context (AppDomain,
etc.)  Let's ensure that Lucene.Net users know the how and why for each

Peter Mateja

View raw message