lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:04:57 GMT
I'd say that is all the more reasons that we need to work smarter and not
harder. I'd also say thats a good reason to make sure we build consensus
rather than just saying whoever commits code wins.

And its a damn good reason to focus on the effort of growing the number of
contributors and lowing the barrier to submitting patches, breaking things
down into pieces that people would feel confident to work on without
being overwhelmed by the complexity of Lucene.Net.

There is a pretty big gap between Lucene 2.9.x to Lucene 4.0 and the
internals and index formats are significantly different including nixing the
current vint file format and using byte[] array slices for Terms instead of
char[].

So while porting 1 to 1 while require less knowledge or thought, its most
likely going to require more hours of work. And Its definitely not going to
guarantee the stability of the code or that its great code.

I'd have to say that its not as stable as most would believe at the moment.

Most of the tests avoid anything that remotely looks like it knows about the
DRY principle and there is a static constructor in the core test case that
throws an exception if it doesn't find an environment variable "TEMP" which
will fail 90% of the tests and nunit will be unable to give you a clear
reason why.  Just to name a few issues I came across working towards getting
Lucene.Net into CI.  I haven't even started really digging in under the
covers of the code yet.

So my suggestion is to chew on this a bit more and build consensus, avoid
fracturing people into sides.  Be open to reservations and concerns that
others have and continue to address them.

- Michael


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:

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