lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Lombard" <lombardena...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:19:22 GMT
Digy,

Should your 2.9.4g be renamed to 3.0 something and then be released in the
future as a 3.0 release?  The current trunk could be released under the tag
2.9.4.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 7:04 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> No no. It was just an example. As you already know, there are a lot of
> changes in contrib codes related with those API changes in
> Lucene.Net.2.9.4g core.
> Therefore, I see no option like merging other that copying.
> 
> DIGY
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 1:53 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> I'm not sure that I see a conflict. Are you referring to the use of
> generic
> Dictionary in IndexInput in 2.9.4g? That's the only point where I could
> see
> a possible problem, but generic dictionaries are supported on WP7, so it
> should be fine.
> 
> In which case, the two should merge and compile correctly.
> 
> Thanks,
> Troy
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > OK. Maybe I asked wrong question, Suppose I committed
> > IsolatedStorageDirectory only to trunk. How would you merge this branch
> &
> > trunk?
> >
> > DIGY.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:28 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> >
> > Yes. But if there are commits to trunk before that happens it's a merge.
> >
> > -T
> > On Jul 2, 2011 1:53 PM, "Digy" <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Troy,
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "merging"? 2.9.4g is a superset of 2.9.4 and has
> > > * bux fixes like LUCENENET-414
> > > * new features like LUCENENET-429, MemoryMappedDirectory(although not
> > used
> > yet) , PartiallyTrustedAppDomain tests
> > > * improvements like LUCENENET-427, LUCENENET-418, Refactoring of
> > SupportClass
> > > * API changes like
> > > - StopAnalyzer(List<string> stopWords)
> > > - Query.ExtractTerms(ICollection<string>)
> > > - TopDocs.TotalHits, TopDocs.ScoreDocs
> > > * readibily-changes like replacing some abstract methods with Func<>,
> > while(XXX.MoveNext())s with foreachs
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Is it something like creating a 2.9.4 tag and replacing trunk with
> > 2.9.4g?
> > >
> > > DIGY
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:36 AM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> needed?
> > >
> > > DIGY - Re: Why do I wait.. That's mostly because I intend to make some
> > deep
> > > changes, which would make merging the 2.9.4g branch back to trunk
> > difficult.
> > > So, it's easier to merge those changes first. Also, I won't have
> enough
> > time
> > > to make my changes until a little way in the future, but probably do
> have
> > > the time to put together another release, so I'll do that first
> because
> > it
> > > fits with my work/life schedule.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Troy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Michael,
> > >> You interpret the report as "whoever commits code wins"? But when I
> look
> > at
> > >> it, I see "a lof of talk, no work". .Net community is not interested
> in
> > >> contributing.
> > >> I really don't understand what hinders people to work on Lucene.Net.
> As
> > I
> > >> did for 2.9.4g, grab the code, do whatever you want on it and submit
> > back.
> > >> If it doesn't fit to the project's direction it can still find a
> place
> > in
> > >> contrib or in branch. All of the approaches can live side by side
> > happily
> > in
> > >> the Lucene.Net repository.
> > >>
> > >> Troy,
> > >> I also don't understand why do you wait for 2.9.4g? It is a *branch*
> and
> > >> has nothing to do with the trunk. It need not be an offical release
> and
> > can
> > >> live in branch as a PoC.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As a result, I got bored to listen to "this should be done that way".
> > What
> > >> I want to see is "I did it that way, should we continue with this".
> > >>
> > >> DIGY
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:47 PM
> > >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> needed?
> > >>
> > >> Michael,
> > >>
> > >> I agree with everything you said. My point in saying "whoever commits
> > code
> > >> wins" was to illustrate the reality of how and why the project has
> the
> > >> current form.
> > >>
> > >> Building consensus is difficult. It is an essential first step before
> we
> > >> can
> > >> do something like make a list of bit-sized pieces of work that others
> > can
> > >> work on.
> > >>
> > >> This is why my real message of "Let's find a way to accommodate both"
> is
> > so
> > >> important. It allows us to build consensus, so that we can settle on
> a
> > >> direction and structure our work.
> > >>
> > >> Until we accomplish that, it really is "whoever commits code wins",
> and
> > >> that
> > >> is an unhealthy and unmaintainable way to operate.
> > >>
> > >> From a technical perspective, your statements about the unit tests
> are
> > >> completely accurate. They really need a LOT of reworking. That's the
> > very
> > >> first step before making any significant changes. Part of the problem
> is
> > >> that the tests themselves are not well written. The other part is
> that
> > the
> > >> Lucene object model was not designed for testability, and it makes
> > writing
> > >> good tests more difficult, and certain tests might not be possible.
> It
> > will
> > >> be difficult to write good unit tests without re-structuring. The
> > biggest
> > >> issue is the use of abstract classes with base behaviour vs
> interfaces
> > or
> > >> fully abstracted classes. Makes mocking tough. This is the direction
> I
> > was
> > >> going when I started the Lucere project. I'd like to start in on that
> > work
> > >> after the 2.9.4g release.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Troy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Herndon <
> > >> mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > 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
View raw message