lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
Date Sun, 02 Jan 2011 21:36:49 GMT

Also, was there any pre/post processing involved in these files? Was it manual / scripts etc?
Just trying to get a feel for the work involved.


> From: digydigy@gmail.com
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 19:03:25 +0200
> 
> > The 3.0.X ports should be 100% Sharpen
> Why?
> What about other alternatives?
> 
> Lucene.java 3.0.3 ==> .Net Conversion Samples ( http://people.apache.org/~digy/Lucene.Net.3.0.3.zip
)
> 
> DIGY
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 1:58 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
> 
> We are inheriting the outstanding issues facing the Lucene.Net project.
> 
> This includes remaining committed to providing a line-by-line port
> that stays in sync with the Java Lucene releases.
> 
> The project is currently extremely behind schedule on this. The 2.9.2
> code base, which is widely used and thus a fairly well received build,
> has never been formally packaged as a release (i.e. binary builds,
> etc). This is the first order of business to take care of (in terms of
> code).
> 
> After that we need to evaluate weather or not to create releases to
> match all subsequent releases made by the Java Lucene project.
> 
> Those releases are:
> - 3.0.0
> - 3.0.1
> - 2.9.3
> - 3.0.2
> - 2.9.4
> - 3.0.3
> 
> In the interest of time, we could skip some of the intermediate
> releases and just get in sync at 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 releases.
> 
> The 3.0.X ports should be 100% Sharpen conversions and post-processing
> scripts. Once written, anyone should be able to repeat the process of
> pulling down the appropriate Java Lucene SVN revision, executing the
> porting scripts, and building the resulting .NET code, yield a valid
> 3.0.X release with a 1:1 matching API.
> 
> This is something we will need to continue being able to do for every
> subsequent Java Lucene release.
> 
> This aspect of our development should be completely separate from our
> refactoring/re-imagining of a more .NET-like API. They need to be
> separate development branches, and possibly even completely different
> implementations. We will attempt to reuse as much of the automated
> port code as we can, with the understanding that the goal of the
> secondary branch is to make a high-quality .NET implementation of
> Lucene, rather than a API compatible implementation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Troy
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Alex Thompson <pierogitus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe we could just bug-fix support the current 2.9.2 codebase unless people
> > really need something in 2.9.x
> >
> > I think there would be a 3.0.x line-by-line port and a 3.0.x idiomatic
> > version.
> >
> > I'd like to throw another idea into the mix which is perhaps the idiomatic
> > version could be created by an automated refactoring of the line-by-line. It
> > might be additional upfront work but might make it easier for future changes
> > from java lucene to be propagated down.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mherndon@amptools.net [mailto:mherndon@amptools.net] On Behalf Of
> > Michael Herndon
> > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 1:28 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support
> >
> > *Backwards Compatibility / Support: *
> > This is definitely something we need to cover.
> >
> > I'm guessing the obvious choice would be to continue the 2.9.X versions
> > under sharpen, maintain the current api thats has java idioms so that people
> > can continue to use it, release patches, ensure stability with the current
> > community. This would be important for people who have built products on top
> > of lucene.net.
> >
> > The 3.0 version should probably match java in terms of breaking the api due
> > to the language changes or maybe even a separate project inside:
> > lucene.netredux (for lack of a better term at the moment).
> >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > --
> > Michael Herndon
> >
> >
> 
 		 	   		  
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message