lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Currens <currens.ch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
Date Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:07:06 GMT
Hmm, I ran into this last week and I specifically recall fixing it,
but sure enough, it is fails to build in both branches.  I guess I
only fixed it in my private branch.

Ah well, it's fixed now. Thanks.


Christopher

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the updated VS2010 solution files.
> Lucene.Net.Core builds without a problem.
> Lucene.Net.Demo encounters 12 errors and will not build.
>
> All 12 are the same error and all are in IndexHtml.cs:
> Non-invocable member 'Lucene.Net.Index.TermEnum.Term' cannot be used like a method.
>
> An example is this statement, line 139:
> reader.DeleteDocuments(uidIter.Term());
>
> Term is apparently now a property, no longer a function.
>
>
> - Neal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 1:23 PM
> To: Lucene Developers; Lucene Users
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>
> Alright -  I see Chris updated the 3.0.3 branch with the solution files and a quick fix
for the NativeFSLockFactory. We've had some people downloading the pre-release packages (Lucene.Net.Contrib
11 times, Lucene.Net 23 times). Mostly all quiet regarding issues. Unless there are any issues
outstanding, lets call it good, run RAT on the 3.0.3 branch to fix any issues about headers,
update the changelog files to represent the changes in 3.0.3 from 2.9.4 ~P
>> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:44:01 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
>> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> oooooooo, the nifty new vs feature find of the day goes to Mr. Currens.
>>
>> I've been using it for tons of JavaScript style development with requireJS,
>> kendo, my own set of scripts, and custom stuff for the day job. It actually
>> provides intellisense for JS inheritance so life is good.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Christopher Currens <currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > It used to be that way.  VS2012 is the first version that produces
>> > backwards compatible projects *and* solutions.  There's an msdn blog
>> > entry[1] that discusses it. It does focus more projects, but starts with
>> > discussing solutions and how having it all backwards compatible would ease
>> > transitions for most companies.  There are a few project types that aren't
>> > backwards compatible, but I think the solution will still open in both,
>> > with a notification that it can't load the project type.
>> >
>> > Excerpt: "In other words, we now have project round-tripping capability so
>> > you can work with the latest features but still keep the solution
>> > compatible with team members using an older version of Visual Studio."
>> >
>> > Anyway, it's about time they did this.  Supporting multiple versions of VS
>> > files has been an annoying missing feature.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/zainnab/archive/2012/06/05/visual-studio-2012-compatibility-aka-project-round-tripping.aspx
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Michael Herndon <
>> > mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it's usually the project files that are backwards compatible not
>> > > the solution files. So you need a solution for each vs version but should
>> > > be able to keep the proj files the same.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes
>> > > >
>> > > > Sent from my Windows Phone
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: Christopher Currens
>> > > > Sent: 8/8/2012 4:22 PM
>> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>> > > >
>> > > > Oh, did you do that so we'd have a branch to do bug fixes?  I had
>> > > forgotten
>> > > > about that.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I just created 3.0.3 last weekend - it should be incredibly up
to
>> > date.
>> > > > > Anything in trunk should be there
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: Christopher Currens
>> > > > > Sent: 8/8/2012 1:35 PM
>> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for the feedback.  Let us know if you run into any more
>> > > > > issues/concerns.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Christopher
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Granroth, Neal V. <
>> > > > > neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes I pulled from the branch not the trunk. I apparently
made the
>> > > > > > incorrect assumption that it would be slightly more stable
than the
>> > > > > current
>> > > > > > work-in-progress.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks for the quick attention and clarifications.  Especially
for
>> > > > those
>> > > > > > that rely upon the binary packages.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Neal
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > From: Christopher Currens [mailto:currens.chris@gmail.com]
>> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:21 PM
>> > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET 3.0.3 Build issues
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > FYI - SVN has been updated with corrected VS2010 solutions
and
>> > added
>> > > > > VS2012
>> > > > > > directory/solution files.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Christopher Currens <
>> > > > > > currens.chris@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > See inline comments.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > Christopher
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<
>> > > > > > > neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> I just pulled down the 3.0.3 branch from SVN and
have
>> > encountered
>> > > an
>> > > > > > >> initial problem with the VisualStudio solution
file
>> > > > > Lucene.Net.Core.sln
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> the VS2010 folder.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Did you pull down the 3.0.3 branch or trunk?  Trunk
is 3.0.3,
>> > I'm
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > > even sure the 3.0.3 branch exists anymore, and if it
does, it is
>> > > > very,
>> > > > > > very
>> > > > > > > out of date.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> This solution will not load in VS2010, Visual Studio
complains
>> > > that
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > >> was created with a newer version.
>> > > > > > >> Opening the solution file in notepad reveals that
it was created
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > >> VS2012 (a not yet released product)
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> They are supposed to be VS2010, if the pathing
didn't give it
>> > > away.
>> > > >  I
>> > > > > > > believe it was my fault, as I usually will change them
back to
>> > > VS2010
>> > > > > > > manually, but forgot to do that while I was adding
.NET 3.5
>> > support
>> > > > > back
>> > > > > > > in.  In order to automate the change, I needed to use
the RC and
>> > > > forgot
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > change the solution files back. As an aside, VS2012
solution
>> > files
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > (or
>> > > > > > > at least supposed to be) backwards compatible with
VS2010.  On my
>> > > > > laptop,
>> > > > > > > which only has VS2010 SP1, they open and compile just
fine.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> It would be very helpful if those maintaining the
source
>> > > > distribution
>> > > > > > >> limit themselves to released development tools
only.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Since that's our normal policy, this isn't really
an issue.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> It also make me wonder of the viability of any
binary
>> > > distributions;
>> > > > > > they
>> > > > > > >> certainly should not have been created with VS2012RC
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Prescott used VS2010 to make the binary, so I don't
think you
>> > need
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > worry about this.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> - Neal G.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>

Mime
View raw message