lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcos Lima <>
Subject Re: Windows RT / WP8 Version
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:30:20 GMT
If I have understood it right, but are you discussing regarding the
dependency of base classes when interacting with IO specifics from SO?
(file access and stuff like that?)

I've followed this thread and I can, probably telling bullshit, but I have
understood that it seems an Dependency Injection matter (not DI itself, but
the composition/discoverability based on available binaries files).

Something similar to what MEF does would help, then we could build only the
base classes.

I've used MEF for a project that we have used different classes for each SO
(XP and W7 were working differently, but i have forgotten what it was). The
project targeting different SO's has used different binary for its bases
classes (when interacting with files and network).. the "upper classes" are
shared among them.

Tell me, please, if it was helpful or just bullshit, seriously.


2013/8/22 Prescott Nasser <>

> Agreed - it would be nice to see us get out a stable 4.x release then
> worry about dog other cool stuff - don't want ot get ahead of ourselves
> (but I don't want to dampen enthusiasm either)
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Mitiaguin<>
> Sent: 8/21/2013 10:18 PM
> To:<>
> Subject: Re: Windows RT / WP8 Version
> Just wondering , there seems to be a problem to keep up with Java
> counterpart for full  .NET framework , plus what versions of .NET to
> support in this conventional port in a future.
> Is it realistic to support all these platforms with Lucene XYZ versions,
> or it is a discussion for the sake of discussion ? Unless certain group
> really needs to deliver something on other platform using Lucene and
> provides the code very unlikely any progress will be made.
> On 8/21/2013 3:49 PM, Christopher Currens wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > I've been thinking lately of doing a real push to have Lucene.Net support
> > more platforms, specifically Windows RT and Windows Phone 8.  There are
> two
> > ways I can think of doing it, and each has its own specific advantages
> and
> > disadvantages.
> >
> > One way, would be to utilize the Portable Class Libraries in VS 2012, and
> > target .NET Framework and Windows Phone (this would also give us
> > Silverlight).  We could leave the core pieces of Lucene.Net in that
> > library, and then have platform specific libraries that will share the
> > code.  This has a convenience advantage at the cost of fragmenting our
> code
> > base a little bit, since some parts will be spread across different
> > assemblies.  We'd probably need to make a platform abstraction layer
> which
> > might involve changing some core types to have abstract base classes that
> > could be implemented by each platform assembly.
> >
> > Another way, would be to manage it ourselves using different projects.
>  The
> > source code could stay in it's existing place, and we'd add links to each
> > source file in the project (instead of having it copy to each directory).
> >   Then, each edit we make to a file would work against all of the
> projects
> > that link that file at the same time.  For platforms that don't support
> > certain features (one current example is ParallelSearcher only working on
> > 4.0+ and not 3.5), they just don't link that file.  However, we still
> have
> > to make sure that the files we do link are cross-platform.
> >
> > I actually don't know which one I prefer, I either need to give it more
> > thought or just choose one, see if I hate it, and switch.  The problem
> with
> > the Portable Class Library projects is that they aren't supported in
> > express editions of Visual Studio.
> >
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christopher
> >

Marcos Lima
Software Developer/Tech Lead
tel: +55 (19) 9798-9335

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message