lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Plaire <codekai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:48:36 GMT
So, veering towards action - are there concrete tasks written up anywhere
for the unit tests? If a poor schlep like me wanted to dig in and start to
improve them, where would I get the understanding of what is good and what
needs help?

-r

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can not say I like this approach, but till we find an automated way(with
> good results), it seems to be the only way we can use.
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:43 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> Scott -
>
> The idea of the automated port is still worth doing. Perhaps it makes sense
> for someone more passionate about the line-by-line idea to do that work?
>
> I would say, focus on what makes sense to you. Being productive, regardless
> of the specific direction, is what will be most valuable. Once you start,
> others will join and momentum will build. That is how these things work.
>
> I like DIGY's approach too, but the problem with it is that it is a
> never-ending manual task. The theory behind the automated port is that it
> may reduce the manual work. It is complicated, but once it's built and
> works, it will save a lot of future development hours. If it's built in a
> sufficiently general manner, it could be useful for other project like
> Lucene.Net that want to automate a port from Java to C#.
>
> It might make sense for that to be a separate project from Lucene.Net
> though.
>
> -T
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Scott Lombard <lombardenator@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Ok I think I asked the wrong question.  I am trying to figure out where
> to
> > put my time.  I was thinking about working on the automated porting
> system,
> > but when I saw the response to the .NET 4.0 discussions I started to
> > question if that is the right direction.  The community seemed to be more
> > interested in the .NET features.
> >
> > The complexity of the automated tool is going to become very high and
> will
> > probably end up with a line-for-line style port.  So I keep asking my
> self
> > is the automated tool worth it.  I don't think it is.
> >
> > I like the method has been Digy is using for porting the code.  So I
> guess
> > for me the real question is Digy where did you see 2.9.4g going next and
> > what do you need help on?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:20 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port
> needed?
> > >
> > > 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message