lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kieran Logan" <>
Subject RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Date Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:05:52 GMT
For selfish reasons I'd like to see the Azure Directory being improved,
there has been a few requests on the Q&A
Discussions#content for the project to be open sourced 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] [] 
Sent: 01 October 2012 22:56
To: <>
Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project

+1 for an ElasticSearch like service (embed able and REST enabled) would get
my vote.

On Oct 1, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <> wrote:

> There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net
( It
would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy, I
think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
> The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them 
> imo, although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen 
> porting would get my votes
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> From:
>> To:
>> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET 
>> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) ,  
>> a Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms 
>> of productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev 
>> should do a pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or 
>> thinking of an idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting 
>>> directly involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to 
>>> fork Lucene.Net, but since getting involved here that project has 
>>> died off. I still get occasional inquiries about the project via 
>>> Codeproject, and I generally point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
>>> I just got an interesting email via that project, with an 
>>> significant offer for development help. See below:
>>> Dear Lucere team,
>>> I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and 
>>> Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have 
>>> project in our objective technologies course. This course is 
>>> concentrated mainly on analysis and design of models (UMLs, 
>>> objective principles and so on), but also on producing very high 
>>> quality of code and using most common approach to development 
>>> nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so on). We 
>>> are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we 
>>> could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project 
>>> like this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of 
>>> very ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough
to build something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
>>> They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design 
>>> everything in best way.
>>> As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing 
>>> some bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in 
>>> highly objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free 
>>> rein in designing such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some 
>>> features we can build in that way.
>>> Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted 
>>> to contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bartlomiej Szczepanik
>>> Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication AGH 
>>> Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
>>> ---
>>> If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and 
>>> see if we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do 
>>> suddenly have 12 new developers that want to work on the project... 
>>> What should they do, and how will we coordinate their work?
>>> His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't 
>>> really fall under the fold of "create and design".
>>> We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of 
>>> the existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating 
>>> some new .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to 
>>> the baseline functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could 
>>> be the group to do that work?
>>> We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an 
>>> automated porting process, and how that would require significant 
>>> coding work to bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps 
>>> they could focus on that?
>>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search 
>>> application that was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, 
>>> that is unique to Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just 
>>> bringing back the .NET remoteing model that was removed)?
>>> Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more 
>>> maintainable (have you seen that code? eek)...
>>> There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Troy

View raw message