lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] 3.0.3
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:15:43 GMT
On 2011-12-02, Prescott Nasser wrote:

> Troy pointed out the benefits of NOT automating a java port, and if we
> can get up to parity, keep us in line shouldn't be too difficult. If
> we move towards a more .Net version, we are going to lose some of the
> ease of that porting. I'm personally ok with that, knowing that X
> causes a bug shouldn't be too hard to track down even if we refactor -
> it should be trivial to set up a quick test with our version and find
> out if the bug applies - if so, using the Java Lucene fix as guidance
> (was it an off by one error or something) can easily be ported into
> our code base (even if not copied and pasted as a line-by-line would
> allow).

As long as the API doesn't change significantly it may be possible to
keep the unit tests as close to line-by-line ports as possible.  This
should give you confidence in any refactoring you've performed and allow
you to port unit tests for Java fixes easily.  Of course you may want to
add more tests.  Just a thought.


View raw message