lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:10:12 GMT
Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this is our
contribution report for the past 5 years.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-2Q
AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-1&issue
Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r
eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next


DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:ayende@ayende.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM
To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

As someone from the nhibernate project
We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it
We have mire features, less bugs and better code base

Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am curious with people who
hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate users?

-r

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <lysaghtn@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has
outlined
> below.
>
> If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose out
> on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make.
> It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search,  a  deep
> knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the
knowledge
> will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be give.
>
> When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it has
> moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to abandoning
a
> line by line port.
> By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and .NET
> goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the moment);
but
> leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
>
> Just my tu-pence worth.
>
> Kind Regards
> Noel
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM
>
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc:
lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the
> history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, all
> the understanding of search, all the new features come from the Lucene
> Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust them
> to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and to
> have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on.
>
> Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET
> who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot more
> value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll take
> a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is significantly
> diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at what
> stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all?
>
> At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to continue,
> and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction.
>
> So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be
> sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using Lucene
> in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. So
> let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general structure
> close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance
> set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other methods
> and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same
> file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of similarity,
> with good documentation and help being available from the Java
> community.
>
> Yours,
> Moray
> ------------------------------**-------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Granroth, Neal V.
[mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com<neal.granroth@thermofisher.com>
> ]
> Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc:
lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> This is has been discussed many times.
> Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a
> line-by-line port.  It ceases to be Lucene.
>
> - Neal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Lombard
[mailto:lombardenator@gmail.**com<lombardenator@gmail.com>
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org <lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>;
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org <lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org>
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
>
>
> After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net
> 2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a
> line-by-line port.  Starting with Digy's excellent work on the
> conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2
> packages would not be interchangeable.  So faster turnaround from a java
> release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will have to wait
> until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code base.
>
>
>
> My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port?
> Anyone have a comment?
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------**---------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ------------------------------**---------------------------
>
>


Mime
View raw message