You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Scott Lombard <lo...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/29 20:57:44 UTC
[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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com>.
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 <ly...@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<lu...@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<lu...@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<ne...@thermofisher.com>
> ]
> Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<lu...@lucene.apache.org>
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<lu...@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<lo...@gmail.com>
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org <lu...@lucene.apache.org>;
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org <lu...@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
> ------------------------------**---------------------------
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
"strict adherence to the line by line porting method"? Of course not.
But having similar looking code is good if you want to port *manually*.
See for ex,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12483888/LUCENE-3234.patch
.
Porting that patch to Lucene.Net was very easy just because of this.
I don't think I have strict or objective rules for porting.
While looking at a patch in Java, if I can find out what to do in Lucene.Net
easily, that is enough.
I used some lamdas too just to make the code more similar to the java
version. For ex,
compare the java code
cache = new FilterCache<DocIdSet>(deletesMode) {
@Override
public DocIdSet mergeDeletes(final IndexReader r, final DocIdSet
docIdSet) {
return new FilteredDocIdSet(docIdSet) {
@Override
protected boolean match(int docID) {
return !r.isDeleted(docID);
}
};
}
};
with the code in comment(17/May/11) in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-412
I am not against idiomatic port if we can keep up with the progress of
Lucene.Java.
But for now, I'll stick to line-by-line port.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Ok, here is a better question. Digy in the 2.9.4g have you maintained a
strict adherence to the line by line porting method? If not what have your
considerations when deviating from the Java.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:39 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> 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
> Cc: 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]
> Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
> ---------------------------------------------------------
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Scott Lombard <lo...@gmail.com>.
Ok, here is a better question. Digy in the 2.9.4g have you maintained a
strict adherence to the line by line porting method? If not what have your
considerations when deviating from the Java.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:39 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> 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
> Cc: 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]
> Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
> ---------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Noel Lysaght <ly...@hotmail.com>.
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
Cc: 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]
Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Noel Lysaght <ly...@hotmail.com>.
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
Cc: 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]
Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>.
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]
Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>.
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]
Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
---------------------------------------------------------
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
> I do not know if too much emphasis should be placed on "user" vs.
"contributor".
I am sorry for this misunderstanding.
What I tried to say with "contributor"(not "committer") was the "people that
works on Lucene.Net source code", not the ones who just consume it.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:23 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
I do not know if too much emphasis should be placed on "user" vs.
"contributor". The project needs to also consider those of us who use
Lucene.NET source releases only.
It is much easier to locally patch/fix the source when I can compare it
directly to Lucene core.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or not.
But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
I do not know if too much emphasis should be placed on "user" vs. "contributor". The project needs to also consider those of us who use Lucene.NET source releases only.
It is much easier to locally patch/fix the source when I can compare it directly to Lucene core.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or not.
But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Scott Lombard <lo...@gmail.com>.
When I look at the goals of Lucene.Net I am trying to understand what is
more important to Lucene.Net users, .NET functionality or a line-for-line
port.
.NET and Java are close but not the same. In the past when give the choice
between a better .NET way or stay with the Java implementation the project
chose to keep the Java implementation. If users don't care that it is a
line-for-line port then contributors will have more freedom to use a better
.NET way, while keeping functionality and index compatibility.
As contributors we can figure out how to get from the Java to Lucene.Net.
This will probably be an automated tool, but the source that the tool
outputs wouldn't need to be highly polished or even compile. The primary
purpose would be to simplify the process of get from Java to .NET for a
release.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:17 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
>
> For the sake of continued conversation, Scott could you define what you
> mean
> by line-by-line port vs non-line-by-line port since technically your the
> thread starter?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or
> > not.
> >
> > But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
> > easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
> >
> > PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level
> incompatibility.
> >
> > DIGY
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Cc: 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]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
For the sake of continued conversation, Scott could you define what you mean
by line-by-line port vs non-line-by-line port since technically your the
thread starter?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or
> not.
>
> But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
> easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
>
> PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility.
>
> DIGY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
I do not know if too much emphasis should be placed on "user" vs. "contributor". The project needs to also consider those of us who use Lucene.NET source releases only.
It is much easier to locally patch/fix the source when I can compare it directly to Lucene core.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or not.
But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or not.
But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life
easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated)
PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: 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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
Others have done a much better , more through job of explaining the issues in previous discussions. It would be best to re-read those.
One way to understand it, is if Lucene.NET cannot be compared to the reference source code (Lucene core "java Lucene") than it becomes nearly impossible to validate that Lucene.NET is functioning correctly, that bug fixes made in Lucene core have been implemented in Lucene.NET, etc. The same goes for unit tests, if they cannot be compared with the ones from Lucene core line-by-line than there is no way to know that they perform the intended tests and run correctly.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Those are pretty strong words -- I'd really like to know why I
shouldn't trust anything but a line-by-line port. Can you explain a
bit?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<ne...@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
Rory,
We'd love to have your contributions! Any time you can spend on it will be
deeply appreciated.
Also, I understand your skepticism, and I agree that this is a significant
concern.
Unfortunately, that's kind of the best we can do. It's the most fair way to
set project priorities; "Whoever contributes the most wins". This is, in one
sense, the basis of Apache's meritocracy (though many would probably
disagree with that characterization). Actions speak louder than words. We
cannot please everyone, and we cannot arbitrarily decide a direction to go
in and force others to contribute to that vision. We can discuss and be open
about all possibilities, but the contributions are the real force behind the
project direction.
We encourage anyone, from whatever perspective or opinion they may hold, to
*write the code* and submit it for inclusion. If the code looks good, works,
and we can generally agree as a PMC that we should use it, we'll commit it.
That is how the project direction will be shaped.
This is fair, because while we might say that "a lot of people want a
line-by-line port" or we might say that "a lot of people want a .NET
idiomatic port" and those people might vocalize that on the mailing lists,
in the end it's "Who is willing to write code and contribute it to the
project?" which determines the shape of the code base. If there really are a
lot or people on either side of a particular opinion, they will manifest
themselves by writing and contributing (or convincing others to do so) and
thus shaping the project.
Right now, we don't have enough contributions from either side of that
discussion to prove that there is a "strong interest" in either one. We have
generally agreed to "depart from Java", but have not yet discussed the form
of that, or to what degree we want to diverge. That means it's open to
interpretation, discussion, and suggestions. No one has submitted a huge
.NET style re-write, or even seriously discussed what that sufficiently that
someone could take action on it. DIGY, who is our most active contributor,
seems most comfortable (at the moment) with maintaining and improving a
"mostly line-by-line" port. Other than that, we have had relatively few
contributions to the core library.
It could be said that this is a result of a lack of vision or direction from
the committers who are organizing the project, but really, it's not for us
to decide what the community wants. Rather, the community tells us what it
wants by voting with their submitted patches.
Take myself for example... I really, really want to move to a very modern,
.NET idiomatic, fluent, LINQ enabled API, with everything based around
interfaces, generics, injected behaviours using Action/Func<T>, all data
streamable, and all memory correctly freed, everything threadsafe, etc. I
bet there are a lot of people like me out there. However, even though I
would really LIKE it to be that way, I have neither written, nor contributed
code that makes that happen, nor effectively convinced/organized others to
help write it. This is proven by the lack of submitted patches... (well,
Chris Currens' streaming contributions are marginally my fault, since I'm
his boss at work and encouraged/enabled him to work on it on the clock, and
discussed the design and implementation details which helped him to write
it, but I personally didn't write any of that code, and it's mostly his
design and personal passion that made it happen). So, when I actually sit
down and write the code for what I want Lucene.Net to be, or sit down and
write the emails to get other people fired up enough to take action, that's
when my opinion becomes influential to the project.
At the end of the day, what is important is to let the community know that
contributions and discussions of ALL KINDS are welcome. We don't want anyone
to say, "Well, I would help out Lucene.Net, but they are going a different
direction than I want to go, so I'll just keep my changes to myself" (or
worse, just not write any code at all).
In my opinion, we should be using our energy and brainpower to discuss how
we can achieve "this AND that" vs arguing over whether we should do "this OR
that". When you write your patches, try to think of how you can implement
something to support both. We don't need two side-by-side code bases, but
rather one code base that supports all major use cases. This is not easy to
do, but it's almost always possible.
We are a bunch of smart and talented folks. We can do it. It'll be awesome.
Thanks,
Troy
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course I'd love to contribute. I'm hopeful I can spend even a few hours
> a
> week doing this when (if...) my people adopt NHibernate.Search.
>
> Troy, I'm going to defer to your sense that there is enough interest and
> support from the community to maintain both code bases. It is hard,
> however,
> to restrain my skepticism, which I relate in order to record a sort of
> warning to consider. In a perfect world two code-bases could live
> side-by-side and even benefit each other. In practice, however, I'm
> doubtful
> that this can be symbiotic relationship. If people contribute more to one
> than another, it creates an unhealthy uncertainty about the state of the
> project. It also splits any potential future project resources who may be
> ambivalent about translation vs. transliteration. Open source projects are
> often fragile, and it's hard for me to keep from worrying if there would
> need to be a sacrifice at some point to keep the project concentrated
> enough
> to remain viable. While the model of open source is such that *anyone* can
> contribute, this very mechanism can also lead to projects that are pulled
> back and forth among contributor needs and interests, adding complexity and
> instability which ultimately doom them.
>
> -r
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I pretty much agree with Rory.
> >
> > And as others have said, this issue has been discussed many times. What
> is
> > most important about the fact that it has been discussed many times is
> that
> > it has not been resolve, even though it has been discussed so many times.
> >
> > That means that the both the developer community that contributes to the
> > project and the user community that uses the library have an interest in
> > *both*. I think we have enough interest and support from the community to
> > develop both of these at the same time.
> >
> > Some key points:
> > - Being a useful index/search library is the goal of any implementation
> of
> > Lucene. Being useful is more important than being identical to one
> another.
> > Don't forget that Java Lucene has bugs, design problems, and may not
> always
> > be the best implementation of Lucene.
> > - Unit tests should validate the code's "correctness" in terms of
> > functionality/bugs
> > - The library can contain multiple APIs for the same tasks. Fluent? LINQ?
> > Just Like Java? Just like pylucene? All of the above?
> > - Implementation details between .NET and Java are *very* significant and
> > often account for a lot of the bugs that are Lucene.Net only. Our attempt
> > to
> > be a "line-by-line" port is what is introducing bugs, not the the other
> way
> > around
> > - The only reason we are having this discussion is because C# and Java
> are
> > very similar languages. If this was a F# port or a VB.NET port, we
> > wouldn't
> > even be discussing this. Instead we'd say "make it work the way that
> makes
> > the most sense in {{insert language here}}".
> >
> >
> > That said, DIGY has a very good point. Continued development on the
> library
> > is the most important part of the project's goals. A dead project helps
> no
> > one. If the current active contributors are writing a line-by-line port,
> > then that's what it will be. If they are writing a complete re-write,
> then
> > that is what it will be. Some might find it easier to write line-by-line,
> > but others might find that task daunting. The opposite is also true. It
> > depends on the person, how much time they have, and what they consider
> > "easy" or "manageable" or "worth doing".
> >
> > As always, if you want the code base to be something specific, submit a
> > patch for that, and it will be. If not, then you need to convince someone
> > else to write that patch. And just so it's clear, *anyone* can write and
> > submit a patch and be a contributor, not just the project committers.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > For what it's worth, I've participated in a number of projects which
> have
> > > been "ported" from Java to .Net with varying levels of "translation"
> into
> > > the native style and functionalty of the .Net framework. The largest
> are
> > > NTS, a JTS port and NHibernate, a Java Hibernate port. My experience is
> > > that
> > > a line-by-line port isn't as valuable as people would imagine.
> > >
> > > Even if we discount the reality that a line-by-line port is really
> > > unachievable due to various differences between the frameworks, keeping
> > > even
> > > identical code in sync will always take some work: full automation on
> > this
> > > large of a project is infeasible. During manual effort, therefore,
> making
> > > readable changes to the code is really not that much more work.
> > >
> > > For update maintenance, porting over code from recent versions of both
> > > projects to the .Net versions, and ".Nettifying" that code is little
> > > trouble. Since both projects use source control, it's easy to see the
> > > changes and translate them.
> > >
> > > When it comes to debugging issues, in NTS or NHibernate, I go to the
> Java
> > > sources, and even if the classes were largely rewritten to take
> advantage
> > > of
> > > IEnumerable or generics or structures, running unit tests, tracing the
> > > code,
> > > and seeing the output of each has always been straightforward.
> > >
> > > Since I'm using .Net, I'd want the Lucene.Net project to be more .Net
> > than
> > > a
> > > line-by-line port of Java, in order to take advantage of the Framework
> as
> > > well as provide a better code base for .Net developers to maintain. If
> > > large
> > > .Net projects ported from Java do this, and have found considerable
> > > success,
> > > it is, in my view, a well-proven practice and shouldn't be avoided due
> to
> > > uncertainty of how the resulting code should work. Ultimately, that is
> > what
> > > unit tests are for, anyway.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com>.
Of course I'd love to contribute. I'm hopeful I can spend even a few hours a
week doing this when (if...) my people adopt NHibernate.Search.
Troy, I'm going to defer to your sense that there is enough interest and
support from the community to maintain both code bases. It is hard, however,
to restrain my skepticism, which I relate in order to record a sort of
warning to consider. In a perfect world two code-bases could live
side-by-side and even benefit each other. In practice, however, I'm doubtful
that this can be symbiotic relationship. If people contribute more to one
than another, it creates an unhealthy uncertainty about the state of the
project. It also splits any potential future project resources who may be
ambivalent about translation vs. transliteration. Open source projects are
often fragile, and it's hard for me to keep from worrying if there would
need to be a sacrifice at some point to keep the project concentrated enough
to remain viable. While the model of open source is such that *anyone* can
contribute, this very mechanism can also lead to projects that are pulled
back and forth among contributor needs and interests, adding complexity and
instability which ultimately doom them.
-r
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I pretty much agree with Rory.
>
> And as others have said, this issue has been discussed many times. What is
> most important about the fact that it has been discussed many times is that
> it has not been resolve, even though it has been discussed so many times.
>
> That means that the both the developer community that contributes to the
> project and the user community that uses the library have an interest in
> *both*. I think we have enough interest and support from the community to
> develop both of these at the same time.
>
> Some key points:
> - Being a useful index/search library is the goal of any implementation of
> Lucene. Being useful is more important than being identical to one another.
> Don't forget that Java Lucene has bugs, design problems, and may not always
> be the best implementation of Lucene.
> - Unit tests should validate the code's "correctness" in terms of
> functionality/bugs
> - The library can contain multiple APIs for the same tasks. Fluent? LINQ?
> Just Like Java? Just like pylucene? All of the above?
> - Implementation details between .NET and Java are *very* significant and
> often account for a lot of the bugs that are Lucene.Net only. Our attempt
> to
> be a "line-by-line" port is what is introducing bugs, not the the other way
> around
> - The only reason we are having this discussion is because C# and Java are
> very similar languages. If this was a F# port or a VB.NET port, we
> wouldn't
> even be discussing this. Instead we'd say "make it work the way that makes
> the most sense in {{insert language here}}".
>
>
> That said, DIGY has a very good point. Continued development on the library
> is the most important part of the project's goals. A dead project helps no
> one. If the current active contributors are writing a line-by-line port,
> then that's what it will be. If they are writing a complete re-write, then
> that is what it will be. Some might find it easier to write line-by-line,
> but others might find that task daunting. The opposite is also true. It
> depends on the person, how much time they have, and what they consider
> "easy" or "manageable" or "worth doing".
>
> As always, if you want the code base to be something specific, submit a
> patch for that, and it will be. If not, then you need to convince someone
> else to write that patch. And just so it's clear, *anyone* can write and
> submit a patch and be a contributor, not just the project committers.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, I've participated in a number of projects which have
> > been "ported" from Java to .Net with varying levels of "translation" into
> > the native style and functionalty of the .Net framework. The largest are
> > NTS, a JTS port and NHibernate, a Java Hibernate port. My experience is
> > that
> > a line-by-line port isn't as valuable as people would imagine.
> >
> > Even if we discount the reality that a line-by-line port is really
> > unachievable due to various differences between the frameworks, keeping
> > even
> > identical code in sync will always take some work: full automation on
> this
> > large of a project is infeasible. During manual effort, therefore, making
> > readable changes to the code is really not that much more work.
> >
> > For update maintenance, porting over code from recent versions of both
> > projects to the .Net versions, and ".Nettifying" that code is little
> > trouble. Since both projects use source control, it's easy to see the
> > changes and translate them.
> >
> > When it comes to debugging issues, in NTS or NHibernate, I go to the Java
> > sources, and even if the classes were largely rewritten to take advantage
> > of
> > IEnumerable or generics or structures, running unit tests, tracing the
> > code,
> > and seeing the output of each has always been straightforward.
> >
> > Since I'm using .Net, I'd want the Lucene.Net project to be more .Net
> than
> > a
> > line-by-line port of Java, in order to take advantage of the Framework as
> > well as provide a better code base for .Net developers to maintain. If
> > large
> > .Net projects ported from Java do this, and have found considerable
> > success,
> > it is, in my view, a well-proven practice and shouldn't be avoided due to
> > uncertainty of how the resulting code should work. Ultimately, that is
> what
> > unit tests are for, anyway.
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
I pretty much agree with Rory.
And as others have said, this issue has been discussed many times. What is
most important about the fact that it has been discussed many times is that
it has not been resolve, even though it has been discussed so many times.
That means that the both the developer community that contributes to the
project and the user community that uses the library have an interest in
*both*. I think we have enough interest and support from the community to
develop both of these at the same time.
Some key points:
- Being a useful index/search library is the goal of any implementation of
Lucene. Being useful is more important than being identical to one another.
Don't forget that Java Lucene has bugs, design problems, and may not always
be the best implementation of Lucene.
- Unit tests should validate the code's "correctness" in terms of
functionality/bugs
- The library can contain multiple APIs for the same tasks. Fluent? LINQ?
Just Like Java? Just like pylucene? All of the above?
- Implementation details between .NET and Java are *very* significant and
often account for a lot of the bugs that are Lucene.Net only. Our attempt to
be a "line-by-line" port is what is introducing bugs, not the the other way
around
- The only reason we are having this discussion is because C# and Java are
very similar languages. If this was a F# port or a VB.NET port, we wouldn't
even be discussing this. Instead we'd say "make it work the way that makes
the most sense in {{insert language here}}".
That said, DIGY has a very good point. Continued development on the library
is the most important part of the project's goals. A dead project helps no
one. If the current active contributors are writing a line-by-line port,
then that's what it will be. If they are writing a complete re-write, then
that is what it will be. Some might find it easier to write line-by-line,
but others might find that task daunting. The opposite is also true. It
depends on the person, how much time they have, and what they consider
"easy" or "manageable" or "worth doing".
As always, if you want the code base to be something specific, submit a
patch for that, and it will be. If not, then you need to convince someone
else to write that patch. And just so it's clear, *anyone* can write and
submit a patch and be a contributor, not just the project committers.
Thanks,
Troy
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've participated in a number of projects which have
> been "ported" from Java to .Net with varying levels of "translation" into
> the native style and functionalty of the .Net framework. The largest are
> NTS, a JTS port and NHibernate, a Java Hibernate port. My experience is
> that
> a line-by-line port isn't as valuable as people would imagine.
>
> Even if we discount the reality that a line-by-line port is really
> unachievable due to various differences between the frameworks, keeping
> even
> identical code in sync will always take some work: full automation on this
> large of a project is infeasible. During manual effort, therefore, making
> readable changes to the code is really not that much more work.
>
> For update maintenance, porting over code from recent versions of both
> projects to the .Net versions, and ".Nettifying" that code is little
> trouble. Since both projects use source control, it's easy to see the
> changes and translate them.
>
> When it comes to debugging issues, in NTS or NHibernate, I go to the Java
> sources, and even if the classes were largely rewritten to take advantage
> of
> IEnumerable or generics or structures, running unit tests, tracing the
> code,
> and seeing the output of each has always been straightforward.
>
> Since I'm using .Net, I'd want the Lucene.Net project to be more .Net than
> a
> line-by-line port of Java, in order to take advantage of the Framework as
> well as provide a better code base for .Net developers to maintain. If
> large
> .Net projects ported from Java do this, and have found considerable
> success,
> it is, in my view, a well-proven practice and shouldn't be avoided due to
> uncertainty of how the resulting code should work. Ultimately, that is what
> unit tests are for, anyway.
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rory,
I agree with you in theory. But collecting people to work on a project is
not easy as giving advise.
Till now, line-by-line port have seemed to be the best with a limited human
source.
Would you be willing to work on your approach and maintain newer Lucene.Net
releases?
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Rory Plaire [mailto:codekaizen@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 1:06 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
For what it's worth, I've participated in a number of projects which have
been "ported" from Java to .Net with varying levels of "translation" into
the native style and functionalty of the .Net framework. The largest are
NTS, a JTS port and NHibernate, a Java Hibernate port. My experience is that
a line-by-line port isn't as valuable as people would imagine.
Even if we discount the reality that a line-by-line port is really
unachievable due to various differences between the frameworks, keeping even
identical code in sync will always take some work: full automation on this
large of a project is infeasible. During manual effort, therefore, making
readable changes to the code is really not that much more work.
For update maintenance, porting over code from recent versions of both
projects to the .Net versions, and ".Nettifying" that code is little
trouble. Since both projects use source control, it's easy to see the
changes and translate them.
When it comes to debugging issues, in NTS or NHibernate, I go to the Java
sources, and even if the classes were largely rewritten to take advantage of
IEnumerable or generics or structures, running unit tests, tracing the code,
and seeing the output of each has always been straightforward.
Since I'm using .Net, I'd want the Lucene.Net project to be more .Net than a
line-by-line port of Java, in order to take advantage of the Framework as
well as provide a better code base for .Net developers to maintain. If large
.Net projects ported from Java do this, and have found considerable success,
it is, in my view, a well-proven practice and shouldn't be avoided due to
uncertainty of how the resulting code should work. Ultimately, that is what
unit tests are for, anyway.
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Rory Plaire <co...@gmail.com>.
For what it's worth, I've participated in a number of projects which have
been "ported" from Java to .Net with varying levels of "translation" into
the native style and functionalty of the .Net framework. The largest are
NTS, a JTS port and NHibernate, a Java Hibernate port. My experience is that
a line-by-line port isn't as valuable as people would imagine.
Even if we discount the reality that a line-by-line port is really
unachievable due to various differences between the frameworks, keeping even
identical code in sync will always take some work: full automation on this
large of a project is infeasible. During manual effort, therefore, making
readable changes to the code is really not that much more work.
For update maintenance, porting over code from recent versions of both
projects to the .Net versions, and ".Nettifying" that code is little
trouble. Since both projects use source control, it's easy to see the
changes and translate them.
When it comes to debugging issues, in NTS or NHibernate, I go to the Java
sources, and even if the classes were largely rewritten to take advantage of
IEnumerable or generics or structures, running unit tests, tracing the code,
and seeing the output of each has always been straightforward.
Since I'm using .Net, I'd want the Lucene.Net project to be more .Net than a
line-by-line port of Java, in order to take advantage of the Framework as
well as provide a better code base for .Net developers to maintain. If large
.Net projects ported from Java do this, and have found considerable success,
it is, in my view, a well-proven practice and shouldn't be avoided due to
uncertainty of how the resulting code should work. Ultimately, that is what
unit tests are for, anyway.
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
Others have done a much better , more through job of explaining the issues in previous discussions. It would be best to re-read those.
One way to understand it, is if Lucene.NET cannot be compared to the reference source code (Lucene core "java Lucene") than it becomes nearly impossible to validate that Lucene.NET is functioning correctly, that bug fixes made in Lucene core have been implemented in Lucene.NET, etc. The same goes for unit tests, if they cannot be compared with the ones from Lucene core line-by-line than there is no way to know that they perform the intended tests and run correctly.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Wyatt Barnett [mailto:wyatt.barnett@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Those are pretty strong words -- I'd really like to know why I
shouldn't trust anything but a line-by-line port. Can you explain a
bit?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<ne...@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>.
Those are pretty strong words -- I'd really like to know why I
shouldn't trust anything but a line-by-line port. Can you explain a
bit?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<ne...@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> 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]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by "Granroth, Neal V." <ne...@thermofisher.com>.
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]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi Scott,
Please avoid crossposting(as I do now). Since when I reply to your eMail, it
goes to one of the lists and thread is splitted into two.
It may be good for announcements but not for discussions.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
Hi Scott,
Please avoid crossposting(as I do now). Since when I reply to your eMail, it
goes to one of the lists and thread is splitted into two.
It may be good for announcements but not for discussions.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Kieran Logan <ki...@roleconnect.com>.
Hi Scott
Can only speak for my own interests. The line-by-line port is not of
interest or to put it another way, I would consider a .Net 4 version which
uses the framework optimally of far greater interest than a line-by-line
port.
Kieran
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 June 2011 19:58
To: lucene-net-dev@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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Posted by Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>.
I'm not really clear exactly what you mean when you say:
"a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 packages would not be
interchangeable."
So I find it hard to judge - I've been not full time on the list though...
What is the proposed change to the roadmap, if any? Is that up-to-date?
M.
-------------------------------------
Moray McConnachie
Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 07:57 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org <lu...@lucene.apache.org>; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org <lu...@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
---------------------------------------------------------