You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by J C <ro...@hotmail.com> on 2006/05/11 01:50:44 UTC
Compression Implementation
Hello George
I have found this:
// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
implemented.
I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
Regards
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
Re: Compression Implementation
Posted by Jeff Rodenburg <je...@gmail.com>.
George - thanks for the clarification.
-- j
On 5/15/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Yes, "compatible" does mean the index can be open/read/write/etc. to when
> created with Java/C# Lucene. This is already is the case with 1.4.x and
> must remain so for 1.9 and forward. In fact, right now you can have two
> processes, one Java and another .NET Lucene where both concurrently
> accessing the same index as long as they are sharing the same lock file.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:43 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> Does "compatible" equal the ability for a Java implementation of Lucene to
> open/read/write to an index created in Lucene.Net?
>
> On 5/15/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 otherwise
> > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based index. Beside,
> > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > compression isn't hard.
> >
> > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes but I have
> > not heard back from him yet.
> >
> > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are taking on
> > this task or not. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
> > conversation.
> >
> > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> > into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate
> > classes to handle compression. While there's a need for .NET 1.1
> > compliance, doing so with a round-about method seems more like an
> > exception approach vs. a standard approach.
> >
> > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned;
> > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to 2.0.
> > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap.
> > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
> > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> >
> > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > 2.0Framework ?
> > I ported
> > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> > few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly
> > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- j
> >
> > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Johnny,
> > >
> > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port --
> > > thus, I left it out.
> > >
> > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > > Lucene.Net 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and
> > > submit your code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a
> > > path to becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > Hello George
> > >
> > > I have found this:
> > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >
> > > http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-
> > > 9b
> > > 0e-491
> > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Jeff,
Yes, "compatible" does mean the index can be open/read/write/etc. to when
created with Java/C# Lucene. This is already is the case with 1.4.x and
must remain so for 1.9 and forward. In fact, right now you can have two
processes, one Java and another .NET Lucene where both concurrently
accessing the same index as long as they are sharing the same lock file.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:43 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
Does "compatible" equal the ability for a Java implementation of Lucene to
open/read/write to an index created in Lucene.Net?
On 5/15/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 otherwise
> 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based index. Beside,
> doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> compression isn't hard.
>
> Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes but I have
> not heard back from him yet.
>
> Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are taking on
> this task or not. Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
> conversation.
>
> While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate
> classes to handle compression. While there's a need for .NET 1.1
> compliance, doing so with a round-about method seems more like an
> exception approach vs. a standard approach.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned;
> I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to 2.0.
> However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap.
> I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
> java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> 2.0Framework ?
> I ported
> 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly
> suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- j
>
> On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johnny,
> >
> > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port --
> > thus, I left it out.
> >
> > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > Lucene.Net 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and
> > submit your code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a
> > path to becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > I have found this:
> > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > implemented.
> >
> > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >
> > http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-
> > 9b
> > 0e-491
> > 1fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Compression Implementation
Posted by Jeff Rodenburg <je...@gmail.com>.
Does "compatible" equal the ability for a Java implementation of Lucene to
open/read/write to an index created in Lucene.Net?
On 5/15/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 otherwise 1.9
> can't be declared compatible with it's Java based index. Beside, doing
> reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party compression isn't
> hard.
>
> Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes but I have not
> heard back from him yet.
>
> Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are taking on
> this
> task or not. Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
> conversation.
>
> While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process into
> the
> code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate classes to
> handle compression. While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing
> so
> with a round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs. a
> standard approach.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned; I'm
> sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to 2.0.
> However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap. I
> know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
> java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the 2.0Framework
> ?
> I ported
> 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a few
> underlying things as well as improved several core classes. Having used
> the
> 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly suggest we consider
> this as a possible solution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- j
>
> On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johnny,
> >
> > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus,
> > I left it out.
> >
> > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net
> > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to becoming
> > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > I have found this:
> > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > implemented.
> >
> > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >
> > http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > 0e-491
> > 1fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
I want to keep this change as simple and small as possible. Lucene.Net
already reads some configuration settings from the app.config file (see the
SupportClass.AppSettings) so I'll just use that.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 0:16 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> I like Eyal's suggestion in keeping the adapter definition to
> implementing an interface.
> This would be initiated through a reflection call, yes?
>
> I would add that the configuration information could be
> driven via custom config sections, which I've done a
> bazillion of lately. If it would help, I'll do the code for
> custom configuration sections that ensure the requisite data
> is loaded from the config file in a structured manner.
>
> -- j
>
> On 5/15/06, Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I was thinking of doing is this:
> > Declare an interface for compression:
> >
> > public interface CompressionAdapter
> > {
> > byte[] Compress(byte[] input);
> > byte[] Uncompress(byte[] input);
> > }
> >
> > Allow users to develop an adapter that implements this
> interface (i.e.
> > SharpZLibCompressionAdapter).
> > The user then add the adapter class name to the app.config file and
> > Lucene will dynamically create an instance of that adapter.
> >
> > This means there's no actual dependency from Lucene to any
> 3rd party
> > library. If the adapter is not configured, compression will
> not work,
> > if it is - this it's the user responsibility to provide the
> > compression library and an adapter.
> >
> > Eyal
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 23:48 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >
> > > Hi Eyal,
> > >
> > > First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
> > >
> > > The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution is
> > > because the current code of Lucene.Net must remain independent of
> > > 3rd party requirement.
> > > For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net,
> you can't
> > > compile or run it without having NUnit be installed on
> your machine
> > > and have the code reference the library. If your
> solution will have
> > > similar requirement, then I don't think we can accept it for 1.9.
> > >
> > > Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
> > >
> > > After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's code
> > > base, we still have to provide an interface which a user
> much code
> > > to in order for the compression code to be in a working order and
> > > utilized by Lucene.Net.
> > > But this code, because it's not a physical part of Lucene.Net, it
> > > doesn't put any restriction on Lucene.Net to require a 3rd party
> > > library/code to be present to use Lucene.Net -- unless if
> the user
> > > wants compression.
> > >
> > > Again, thanks for taking on this task.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >
> > > I'm on it.
> > > Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the
> interface way?
> > > Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
> > >
> > > Eyal
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > >
> > > > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET
> > > 1.1 otherwise
> > > > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based
> > > index. Beside,
> > > > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > > > compression isn't hard.
> > > >
> > > > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> > > but I have
> > > > not heard back from him yet.
> > > >
> > > > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you
> > > are taking on
> > > > this task or not. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > -- George Aroush
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> > > >
> > > > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens
> > > up a bigger
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > > > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection
> > > > process into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already
> contains the
> > > appropriate
> > > > classes to handle compression.
> > > > While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> > > > round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> > > > a standard approach.
> > > >
> > > > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> > > abandoned;
> > > > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as
> opposed to
> > > > 2.0.
> > > > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just
> > > a stopgap.
> > > > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later
> > > on when the
> > > > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> > > >
> > > > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > > > 2.0Framework?
> > > > I ported
> > > > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it
> has changed
> > > > a few underlying things as well as improved several
> core classes.
> > > > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I
> > > would strongly
> > > > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > -- j
> > > >
> > > > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Johnny,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET
> > > > > 1.1 doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> > > > port -- thus,
> > > > > I left it out.
> > > > >
> > > > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection
> and through
> > > > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > > > Lucene.Net
> > > > > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> > > > > your code. Your effort will be more then welcome and
> is a path
> > > > to becoming
> > > > > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > -- George Aroush
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > > > Importance: High
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello George
> > > > >
> > > > > I have found this:
> > > > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection
> and ZLib?
> > > > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> is not yet
> > > > > implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Johnny
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > > > _ Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-
> > > 9b
> > > > > 0e-491
> > > > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Compression Implementation
Posted by Jeff Rodenburg <je...@gmail.com>.
I like Eyal's suggestion in keeping the adapter definition to implementing
an interface.
This would be initiated through a reflection call, yes?
I would add that the configuration information could be driven via custom
config sections, which I've done a bazillion of lately. If it would help,
I'll do the code for custom configuration sections that ensure the requisite
data is loaded from the config file in a structured manner.
-- j
On 5/15/06, Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com> wrote:
>
> What I was thinking of doing is this:
> Declare an interface for compression:
>
> public interface CompressionAdapter
> {
> byte[] Compress(byte[] input);
> byte[] Uncompress(byte[] input);
> }
>
> Allow users to develop an adapter that implements this interface (i.e.
> SharpZLibCompressionAdapter).
> The user then add the adapter class name to the app.config file and Lucene
> will dynamically create an instance of that adapter.
>
> This means there's no actual dependency from Lucene to any 3rd party
> library. If the adapter is not configured, compression will not work, if
> it
> is - this it's the user responsibility to provide the compression library
> and an adapter.
>
> Eyal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 23:48 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Hi Eyal,
> >
> > First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
> >
> > The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution
> > is because the current code of Lucene.Net must remain
> > independent of 3rd party requirement.
> > For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net, you
> > can't compile or run it without having NUnit be installed on
> > your machine and have the code reference the library. If
> > your solution will have similar requirement, then I don't
> > think we can accept it for 1.9.
> >
> > Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
> >
> > After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's
> > code base, we still have to provide an interface which a user
> > much code to in order for the compression code to be in a
> > working order and utilized by Lucene.Net.
> > But this code, because it's not a physical part of
> > Lucene.Net, it doesn't put any restriction on Lucene.Net to
> > require a 3rd party library/code to be present to use
> > Lucene.Net -- unless if the user wants compression.
> >
> > Again, thanks for taking on this task.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >
> > I'm on it.
> > Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
> > Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
> >
> > Eyal
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET
> > 1.1 otherwise
> > > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based
> > index. Beside,
> > > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > > compression isn't hard.
> > >
> > > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> > but I have
> > > not heard back from him yet.
> > >
> > > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you
> > are taking on
> > > this task or not. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> > >
> > > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens
> > up a bigger
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> > > into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the
> > appropriate
> > > classes to handle compression.
> > > While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> > > round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> > > a standard approach.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> > abandoned;
> > > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to
> > > 2.0.
> > > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just
> > a stopgap.
> > > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later
> > on when the
> > > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> > >
> > > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > > 2.0Framework?
> > > I ported
> > > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> > > few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> > > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I
> > would strongly
> > > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > -- j
> > >
> > > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Johnny,
> > > >
> > > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > > > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> > > port -- thus,
> > > > I left it out.
> > > >
> > > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > > Lucene.Net
> > > > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > > > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> > > to becoming
> > > > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > -- George Aroush
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > > Importance: High
> > > >
> > > > Hello George
> > > >
> > > > I have found this:
> > > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > > > implemented.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Johnny
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > > > 0e-491
> > > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Eyal,
Thanks for contributing this code/fix. This is the kind of solution that I
had in mind. Much appreciated!
I took a quick look and everything look good. In the next few days I will
incorporate this code, run the Lucene Test codes, etc.
Regards,
-- George
-----Original Message-----
From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:28 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
Here's my first go at implementing this. Attached are 2 zip files (Is there
a better way to introduce patches? I'm not really familiar with the Apache
way of doing things...)
1. Index.zip - contains 2 changed files from Lucene.Net\Index folder and 1
new file. CompressionSupport.cs is the new file and it contains the code to
dynamically create the compression adapter on it's first use.
2. SharpZipLibAdapter.zip - contains the code for the adapter for the
SharpZipLib library. This should be compiled into it's own assembly.
To make Lucene.Net work with this adapter, do the following:
1. Compile Lucene.Net with the changed files.
2. Compile SharpZipLibAdapter.cs in it's own assembly (name it
SharpZipLibAdapter.dll) and deploy it with Lucene 3. In your app.config or
web.config, add the following:
<appSettings>
<add key="Lucene.Net.CompressionLib.class"
value="Lucene.Net.Index.Compression.SharpZipLibAdapter, SharpZipLibAdapter"
/>
</appSettings>
I made 2 tests to see if this works:
1. Create an index with compressed fields from a Java application and try to
read it with Lucene.Net.
2. Create an index with compressed fields from a Lucene.Net application and
try to read it from a Java application.
Both tests worked.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 23:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> Hi Eyal,
>
> First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
>
> The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution is because
> the current code of Lucene.Net must remain independent of 3rd party
> requirement.
> For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net, you can't
> compile or run it without having NUnit be installed on your machine
> and have the code reference the library. If your solution will have
> similar requirement, then I don't think we can accept it for 1.9.
>
> Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
>
> After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's code base,
> we still have to provide an interface which a user much code to in
> order for the compression code to be in a working order and utilized
> by Lucene.Net.
> But this code, because it's not a physical part of Lucene.Net, it
> doesn't put any restriction on Lucene.Net to require a 3rd party
> library/code to be present to use Lucene.Net -- unless if the user
> wants compression.
>
> Again, thanks for taking on this task.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> I'm on it.
> Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
> Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
>
> Eyal
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET
> 1.1 otherwise
> > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based
> index. Beside,
> > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > compression isn't hard.
> >
> > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> but I have
> > not heard back from him yet.
> >
> > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you
> are taking on
> > this task or not. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens
> up a bigger
> > conversation.
> >
> > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> > into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the
> appropriate
> > classes to handle compression.
> > While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> > round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> > a standard approach.
> >
> > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> abandoned;
> > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to
> > 2.0.
> > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just
> a stopgap.
> > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later
> on when the
> > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> >
> > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > 2.0Framework?
> > I ported
> > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> > few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I
> would strongly
> > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- j
> >
> > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Johnny,
> > >
> > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> > port -- thus,
> > > I left it out.
> > >
> > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > Lucene.Net
> > > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> > to becoming
> > > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > Hello George
> > >
> > > I have found this:
> > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > > 0e-491
> > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
Here's my first go at implementing this. Attached are 2 zip files (Is there
a better way to introduce patches? I'm not really familiar with the Apache
way of doing things...)
1. Index.zip - contains 2 changed files from Lucene.Net\Index folder and 1
new file. CompressionSupport.cs is the new file and it contains the code to
dynamically create the compression adapter on it's first use.
2. SharpZipLibAdapter.zip - contains the code for the adapter for the
SharpZipLib library. This should be compiled into it's own assembly.
To make Lucene.Net work with this adapter, do the following:
1. Compile Lucene.Net with the changed files.
2. Compile SharpZipLibAdapter.cs in it's own assembly (name it
SharpZipLibAdapter.dll) and deploy it with Lucene
3. In your app.config or web.config, add the following:
<appSettings>
<add key="Lucene.Net.CompressionLib.class"
value="Lucene.Net.Index.Compression.SharpZipLibAdapter, SharpZipLibAdapter"
/>
</appSettings>
I made 2 tests to see if this works:
1. Create an index with compressed fields from a Java application and try to
read it with Lucene.Net.
2. Create an index with compressed fields from a Lucene.Net application and
try to read it from a Java application.
Both tests worked.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 23:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> Hi Eyal,
>
> First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
>
> The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution
> is because the current code of Lucene.Net must remain
> independent of 3rd party requirement.
> For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net, you
> can't compile or run it without having NUnit be installed on
> your machine and have the code reference the library. If
> your solution will have similar requirement, then I don't
> think we can accept it for 1.9.
>
> Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
>
> After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's
> code base, we still have to provide an interface which a user
> much code to in order for the compression code to be in a
> working order and utilized by Lucene.Net.
> But this code, because it's not a physical part of
> Lucene.Net, it doesn't put any restriction on Lucene.Net to
> require a 3rd party library/code to be present to use
> Lucene.Net -- unless if the user wants compression.
>
> Again, thanks for taking on this task.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> I'm on it.
> Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
> Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
>
> Eyal
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET
> 1.1 otherwise
> > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based
> index. Beside,
> > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > compression isn't hard.
> >
> > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> but I have
> > not heard back from him yet.
> >
> > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you
> are taking on
> > this task or not. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens
> up a bigger
> > conversation.
> >
> > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> > into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the
> appropriate
> > classes to handle compression.
> > While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> > round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> > a standard approach.
> >
> > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> abandoned;
> > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to
> > 2.0.
> > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just
> a stopgap.
> > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later
> on when the
> > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> >
> > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > 2.0Framework?
> > I ported
> > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> > few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I
> would strongly
> > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- j
> >
> > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Johnny,
> > >
> > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> > port -- thus,
> > > I left it out.
> > >
> > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > Lucene.Net
> > > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> > to becoming
> > > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > Hello George
> > >
> > > I have found this:
> > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > > 0e-491
> > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
What I was thinking of doing is this:
Declare an interface for compression:
public interface CompressionAdapter
{
byte[] Compress(byte[] input);
byte[] Uncompress(byte[] input);
}
Allow users to develop an adapter that implements this interface (i.e.
SharpZLibCompressionAdapter).
The user then add the adapter class name to the app.config file and Lucene
will dynamically create an instance of that adapter.
This means there's no actual dependency from Lucene to any 3rd party
library. If the adapter is not configured, compression will not work, if it
is - this it's the user responsibility to provide the compression library
and an adapter.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 23:48 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> Hi Eyal,
>
> First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
>
> The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution
> is because the current code of Lucene.Net must remain
> independent of 3rd party requirement.
> For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net, you
> can't compile or run it without having NUnit be installed on
> your machine and have the code reference the library. If
> your solution will have similar requirement, then I don't
> think we can accept it for 1.9.
>
> Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
>
> After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's
> code base, we still have to provide an interface which a user
> much code to in order for the compression code to be in a
> working order and utilized by Lucene.Net.
> But this code, because it's not a physical part of
> Lucene.Net, it doesn't put any restriction on Lucene.Net to
> require a 3rd party library/code to be present to use
> Lucene.Net -- unless if the user wants compression.
>
> Again, thanks for taking on this task.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> I'm on it.
> Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
> Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
>
> Eyal
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET
> 1.1 otherwise
> > 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based
> index. Beside,
> > doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> > compression isn't hard.
> >
> > Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> but I have
> > not heard back from him yet.
> >
> > Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you
> are taking on
> > this task or not. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
> >
> > Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens
> up a bigger
> > conversation.
> >
> > While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> > into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the
> appropriate
> > classes to handle compression.
> > While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> > round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> > a standard approach.
> >
> > I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> abandoned;
> > I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to
> > 2.0.
> > However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just
> a stopgap.
> > I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later
> on when the
> > java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
> >
> > Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> > 2.0Framework?
> > I ported
> > 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> > few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> > Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I
> would strongly
> > suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -- j
> >
> > On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Johnny,
> > >
> > > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> > port -- thus,
> > > I left it out.
> > >
> > > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > Lucene.Net
> > > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> > to becoming
> > > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -- George Aroush
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > > Hello George
> > >
> > > I have found this:
> > > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > > implemented.
> > >
> > > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > > 0e-491
> > > 1fb2b2e6d
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Eyal,
First thanks for taking on this task, it's much appreciated.
The reason why I believe we need a reflection base solution is because the
current code of Lucene.Net must remain independent of 3rd party requirement.
For example, if you look at the Test code for Lucene.Net, you can't compile
or run it without having NUnit be installed on your machine and have the
code reference the library. If your solution will have similar requirement,
then I don't think we can accept it for 1.9.
Reflection seems to me is the only way to save this problem.
After putting together the reflection code in Lucene.Net's code base, we
still have to provide an interface which a user much code to in order for
the compression code to be in a working order and utilized by Lucene.Net.
But this code, because it's not a physical part of Lucene.Net, it doesn't
put any restriction on Lucene.Net to require a 3rd party library/code to be
present to use Lucene.Net -- unless if the user wants compression.
Again, thanks for taking on this task.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:24 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
I'm on it.
Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 otherwise
> 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java based index. Beside,
> doing reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party
> compression isn't hard.
>
> Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes but I have
> not heard back from him yet.
>
> Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are taking on
> this task or not. Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
> conversation.
>
> While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process
> into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate
> classes to handle compression.
> While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> a standard approach.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned;
> I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to
> 2.0.
> However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap.
> I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
> java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> 2.0Framework?
> I ported
> 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a
> few underlying things as well as improved several core classes.
> Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly
> suggest we consider this as a possible solution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- j
>
> On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johnny,
> >
> > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> port -- thus,
> > I left it out.
> >
> > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> Lucene.Net
> > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> to becoming
> > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > I have found this:
> > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > implemented.
> >
> > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >
> >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > 0e-491
> > 1fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
I'm on it.
Just wondering, why take the reflection way and not the interface way?
Interface way seems more "correct" and will also perform better.
Eyal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 21:54 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1
> otherwise 1.9 can't be declared compatible with it's Java
> based index. Beside, doing reflection to provide a plug-in
> solution to a 3rd party compression isn't hard.
>
> Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes
> but I have not heard back from him yet.
>
> Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are
> taking on this task or not. Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
>
> Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up
> a bigger conversation.
>
> While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection
> process into the code, the .NET 2.0 framework already
> contains the appropriate classes to handle compression.
> While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so with a
> round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs.
> a standard approach.
>
> I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be
> abandoned; I'm sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the
> world as opposed to 2.0.
> However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a
> stopgap. I know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework
> later on when the java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
>
> Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
> 2.0Framework?
> I ported
> 1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has
> changed a few underlying things as well as improved several
> core classes. Having used the 2.0 Framework for the past 6
> months, I would strongly suggest we consider this as a
> possible solution.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- j
>
> On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Johnny,
> >
> > I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this
> port -- thus,
> > I left it out.
> >
> > My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> Lucene.Net
> > 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> > code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path
> to becoming
> > a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -- George Aroush
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > I have found this:
> > // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > implemented.
> >
> > I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >
> >
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> > 0e-491
> > 1fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Jeff,
We need compression support in Lucene.Net 1.9 using .NET 1.1 otherwise 1.9
can't be declared compatible with it's Java based index. Beside, doing
reflection to provide a plug-in solution to a 3rd party compression isn't
hard.
Eyal already asked if he can work on this part. I said yes but I have not
heard back from him yet.
Eyal: If you are reading this, please let us know if you are taking on this
task or not. Thanks!
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Rodenburg [mailto:jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Compression Implementation
Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
conversation.
While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process into the
code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate classes to
handle compression. While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so
with a round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs. a
standard approach.
I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned; I'm
sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to 2.0.
However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap. I
know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the 2.0Framework?
I ported
1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a few
underlying things as well as improved several core classes. Having used the
2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly suggest we consider
this as a possible solution.
Thoughts?
-- j
On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Johnny,
>
> I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus,
> I left it out.
>
> My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net
> 1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your
> code. Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to becoming
> a committer for Lucene.Net.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Compression Implementation
> Importance: High
>
> Hello George
>
> I have found this:
> // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> implemented.
>
> I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
>
> Regards
> Johnny
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
>
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b
> 0e-491
> 1fb2b2e6d
>
>
Re: Compression Implementation
Posted by Jeff Rodenburg <je...@gmail.com>.
Looking at this from a bit broader perspective, this opens up a bigger
conversation.
While working to implement a third-party hook-by-reflection process into the
code, the .NET 2.0 framework already contains the appropriate classes to
handle compression. While there's a need for .NET 1.1 compliance, doing so
with a round-about method seems more like an exception approach vs. a
standard approach.
I don't mean to suggest that usage for the 1.1 Framework be abandoned; I'm
sure there is greater 1.1 usage out in the world as opposed to 2.0.
However, jumping through hoops to support 1.1 is also just a stopgap. I
know there is a plan to move to the 2.0 Framework later on when the
java-based Lucene project hits its 2.0 definition.
Would it be worthwhile to consider a side-by-side port to the
2.0Framework? I ported
1.4.3 to the 2.0 Framework myself last winter, and it has changed a few
underlying things as well as improved several core classes. Having used the
2.0 Framework for the past 6 months, I would strongly suggest we consider
this as a possible solution.
Thoughts?
-- j
On 5/11/06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Johnny,
>
> I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1 doesn't
> have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus, I left it
> out.
>
> My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> reflection,
> one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net 1.9. If you
> want
> to take on this part, please do and submit your code. Your effort will be
> more then welcome and is a path to becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- George Aroush
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Compression Implementation
> Importance: High
>
> Hello George
>
> I have found this:
> // {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> implemented.
>
> I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
>
> Regards
> Johnny
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
>
> http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491
> 1fb2b2e6d
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Ali,
That won't work. Doing so then Lucene.Net won't be a pure C# code and it
won't compile under Mono.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: Ali Khawaja [mailto:akhawaja@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:55 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
If I remember correctly, you should be able to use j# libraries. It has
implementation of zip and its in .net framework 1.1, unless you are looking
for something else.
Ali
-----Original Message-----
From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:05 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
Hi Johnny,
I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1 doesn't
have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus, I left it out.
My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through reflection,
one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net 1.9. If you want
to take on this part, please do and submit your code.
Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to becoming a committer
for Lucene.Net.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Compression Implementation
Importance: High
Hello George
I have found this:
// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
implemented.
I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
Regards
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e
-491
1fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Ali Khawaja <ak...@microsoft.com>.
If I remember correctly, you should be able to use j# libraries. It has
implementation of zip and its in .net framework 1.1, unless you are
looking for something else.
Ali
-----Original Message-----
From: George Aroush [mailto:george@aroush.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:05 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
Hi Johnny,
I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus, I
left it out.
My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net
1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit your code.
Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to becoming a
committer for Lucene.Net.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Compression Implementation
Importance: High
Hello George
I have found this:
// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
implemented.
I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
Regards
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e
-491
1fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Everyone,
As Erik and everyone else pointed out, we can't include a 3rd party code
with Lucene.Net on ASF. Also, I don't like creating a dependency on a 3rd
party code/library. This is why I don't package NUnit with Lucene.Net
source code or binary. Currently, like the Java version of Lucene, the Test
code has a dependency on NUnit which has confused few folks.
Eyal's suggestion is very similar to what I have been suggestion -- look for
my comment in the code. What we need is a "hook" code which utilizes C#
reflection in Lucene.Net. Through reflection, we can plug-in any 3rd party
compression library. Once we move to .NET 2.0 Framework this reflection
code can be removed.
Eyal: Please go ahead and write it. A good place to look for how to use
reflection for this task is the Snowball.Net code which is found under SVN
for Lucene.Net.
This is really one of the only missing element from Lucene.Net 1.9 to make
it fully compatible with it's Java version. Without this support, a
compressed index created via the Java version of Lucene can't be used with
Lucene.Net
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: Eyal Post [mailto:eyalpost@epocalipse.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 5:39 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
I read the section you referenced, but I'm not sure what "compatible" means
when it comes to licensing.
to avoid those licensing issues, I would suggest not to try and incorporate
ziplib as is into lucene. Instead, let's declare an interface for zipping
and allow adapters to be written for different compression libraries. A good
candidate for the contrib section would be a adapter for ziplib. In Lucene
2.0 we'll simply use the compression support from the framework.
If that sounds ok, then I'll be happy to start working on the infrastructure
for this.
Eyal Post
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
>
> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
>
> IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
> IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code, but it
> is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at run-time for
> sure. The trickier part is a more built-in dependency. I recommend
> asking this on the incubator list first and see how others are
> handling it before proceeding with any ziplib integration.
>
> Erik
>
>
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> >
> >> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> >> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
> >>
> >> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene
> because they use
> >> different open source licenses.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Eyal Post
> >> EPocalipse Software
> >> http://www.epocalipse.com
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> >> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> > Importance: High
> >> >
> >> > Hello George
> >> >
> >> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> >> >
> >> > Im on it now.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> > Johnny
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> >> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> >> > >
> >> > >Hi Johnny,
> >> > >
> >> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.
> Since .NET 1.1
> >> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> >> > -- thus, I
> >> > >left it out.
> >> > >
> >> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> >> > >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> >> > Lucene.Net
> >> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> >> > your code.
> >> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> >> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > >-- George Aroush
> >> > >
> >> > >-----Original Message-----
> >> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> >> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> >> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> >> > >Importance: High
> >> > >
> >> > >Hello George
> >> > >
> >> > >I have found this:
> >> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> >> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> is not yet
> >> > >implemented.
> >> > >
> >> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards
> >> > >Johnny
> >> > >
> >> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
> >> 1-4314-9b0
> >> >e-491
> >> >1fb2b2e6d
> >> >
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
> >> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
> >> cg_801459/pi_1004
> >> 813/ai_833884
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> > ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> > b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
>
>
>
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by J C <ro...@hotmail.com>.
Not really.
The 'plug in' part is done from a config file.
I was tryin 2 make it a bit more efficient (also simpler).
Please be advised that the java lucene requires 'no config'.
Regards
Johnny
>From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
>Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 18:00:16 -0400
>
>Hi Johnny,
>
>If by "done the 'Plug-in' pat already" you mean the sample code that you
>posted yesterday, then that code can't be used. Please see my response
>earlier today as to why and my suggested solution.
>
>Regards,
>
>-- George Aroush
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:09 AM
>To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Importance: High
>
>
>Just let ya folks kno that I hav done the "Plug-in" part already.
>My concern is that it is to compromise the statement of "no conifg" from
>java version.
>Even if we hav to introduce "config", wat kind of format ?
>
>Please clarify and then i can incoporate it accordingly.
>
>Regards
>Johnny
>
>
> >From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:38:42 +0300
> >
> >I read the section you referenced, but I'm not sure what "compatible"
> >means when it comes to licensing.
> >to avoid those licensing issues, I would suggest not to try and
> >incorporate ziplib as is into lucene. Instead, let's declare an
> >interface for zipping and allow adapters to be written for different
> >compression libraries. A good candidate for the contrib section would
> >be a adapter for ziplib. In Lucene 2.0 we'll simply use the compression
> >support from the framework.
> >If that sounds ok, then I'll be happy to start working on the
> >infrastructure for this.
> >
> >Eyal Post
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> > >
> > > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
> > >
> > > IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
> > > IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code, but it
> > > is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at run-time for
> > > sure. The trickier part is a more built-in dependency. I recommend
> > > asking this on the incubator list first and see how others are
> > > handling it before proceeding with any ziplib integration.
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Johnny
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> > > >> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > > >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene
> > > because they use
> > > >> different open source licenses.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Eyal Post
> > > >> EPocalipse Software
> > > >> http://www.epocalipse.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > >> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> > > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > > >> > Importance: High
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hello George
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Im on it now.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Cheers
> > > >> > Johnny
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> > > >> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > > >> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > > >> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Hi Johnny,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.
> > > Since .NET 1.1
> > > >> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> > > >> > -- thus, I
> > > >> > >left it out.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and
> > > >> > >through reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression
> > > >> > >into
> > > >> > Lucene.Net
> > > >> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> > > >> > your code.
> > > >> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> > > >> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Regards,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >-- George Aroush
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > > >> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > > >> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> > > >> > >Importance: High
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Hello George
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >I have found this:
> > > >> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > > >> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> > > is not yet
> > > >> > >implemented.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >Regards
> > > >> > >Johnny
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >_________________________________________________________________
> > > >> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > > >> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
> > > >> 1-4314-9b0
> > > >> >e-491
> > > >> >1fb2b2e6d
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > > >> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
> > > >> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
> > > >> cg_801459/pi_1004
> > > >> 813/ai_833884
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> > > > ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> > > > b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
>http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491
>1fb2b2e6d
>
_________________________________________________________________
Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/cg_801459/pi_1004813/ai_833884
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Johnny,
If by "done the 'Plug-in' pat already" you mean the sample code that you
posted yesterday, then that code can't be used. Please see my response
earlier today as to why and my suggested solution.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:09 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
Importance: High
Just let ya folks kno that I hav done the "Plug-in" part already.
My concern is that it is to compromise the statement of "no conifg" from
java version.
Even if we hav to introduce "config", wat kind of format ?
Please clarify and then i can incoporate it accordingly.
Regards
Johnny
>From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
>Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:38:42 +0300
>
>I read the section you referenced, but I'm not sure what "compatible"
>means when it comes to licensing.
>to avoid those licensing issues, I would suggest not to try and
>incorporate ziplib as is into lucene. Instead, let's declare an
>interface for zipping and allow adapters to be written for different
>compression libraries. A good candidate for the contrib section would
>be a adapter for ziplib. In Lucene 2.0 we'll simply use the compression
>support from the framework.
>If that sounds ok, then I'll be happy to start working on the
>infrastructure for this.
>
>Eyal Post
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> >
> > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
> >
> > IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
> > IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code, but it
> > is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at run-time for
> > sure. The trickier part is a more built-in dependency. I recommend
> > asking this on the incubator list first and see how others are
> > handling it before proceeding with any ziplib integration.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > >
> > >> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> > >> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
> > >>
> > >> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene
> > because they use
> > >> different open source licenses.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Eyal Post
> > >> EPocalipse Software
> > >> http://www.epocalipse.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> > Importance: High
> > >> >
> > >> > Hello George
> > >> >
> > >> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> > >> >
> > >> > Im on it now.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers
> > >> > Johnny
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> > >> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Hi Johnny,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.
> > Since .NET 1.1
> > >> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> > >> > -- thus, I
> > >> > >left it out.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and
> > >> > >through reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression
> > >> > >into
> > >> > Lucene.Net
> > >> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> > >> > your code.
> > >> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> > >> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >-- George Aroush
> > >> > >
> > >> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > >> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > >> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> > >> > >Importance: High
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Hello George
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I have found this:
> > >> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > >> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> > is not yet
> > >> > >implemented.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Regards
> > >> > >Johnny
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
> > >> 1-4314-9b0
> > >> >e-491
> > >> >1fb2b2e6d
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
> > >> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
> > >> cg_801459/pi_1004
> > >> 813/ai_833884
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> > > ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> > > b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491
1fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by J C <ro...@hotmail.com>.
Just let ya folks kno that I hav done the "Plug-in" part already.
My concern is that it is to compromise the statement of "no conifg" from
java version.
Even if we hav to introduce "config", wat kind of format ?
Please clarify and then i can incoporate it accordingly.
Regards
Johnny
>From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
>Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 12:38:42 +0300
>
>I read the section you referenced, but I'm not sure what "compatible" means
>when it comes to licensing.
>to avoid those licensing issues, I would suggest not to try and incorporate
>ziplib as is into lucene. Instead, let's declare an interface for zipping
>and allow adapters to be written for different compression libraries. A
>good
>candidate for the contrib section would be a adapter for ziplib. In Lucene
>2.0 we'll simply use the compression support from the framework.
>If that sounds ok, then I'll be happy to start working on the
>infrastructure
>for this.
>
>Eyal Post
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> >
> > <http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
> >
> > IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
> > IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code,
> > but it is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at
> > run-time for sure. The trickier part is a more built-in
> > dependency. I recommend asking this on the incubator list
> > first and see how others are handling it before proceeding
> > with any ziplib integration.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > > Regards
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > >
> > >> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> > >> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
> > >>
> > >> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene
> > because they use
> > >> different open source licenses.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Eyal Post
> > >> EPocalipse Software
> > >> http://www.epocalipse.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> > Importance: High
> > >> >
> > >> > Hello George
> > >> >
> > >> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> > >> >
> > >> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> > >> >
> > >> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> > >> >
> > >> > Im on it now.
> > >> >
> > >> > Cheers
> > >> > Johnny
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> > >> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Hi Johnny,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.
> > Since .NET 1.1
> > >> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> > >> > -- thus, I
> > >> > >left it out.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > >> > >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > >> > Lucene.Net
> > >> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> > >> > your code.
> > >> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> > >> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Regards,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >-- George Aroush
> > >> > >
> > >> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > >> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > >> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> > >> > >Importance: High
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Hello George
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I have found this:
> > >> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > >> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> > is not yet
> > >> > >implemented.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Regards
> > >> > >Johnny
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
> > >> 1-4314-9b0
> > >> >e-491
> > >> >1fb2b2e6d
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> > >> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
> > >> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
> > >> cg_801459/pi_1004
> > >> 813/ai_833884
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> > > ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> > > b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
> >
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
I read the section you referenced, but I'm not sure what "compatible" means
when it comes to licensing.
to avoid those licensing issues, I would suggest not to try and incorporate
ziplib as is into lucene. Instead, let's declare an interface for zipping
and allow adapters to be written for different compression libraries. A good
candidate for the contrib section would be a adapter for ziplib. In Lucene
2.0 we'll simply use the compression support from the framework.
If that sounds ok, then I'll be happy to start working on the infrastructure
for this.
Eyal Post
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
>
> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
>
> IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
> IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code,
> but it is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at
> run-time for sure. The trickier part is a more built-in
> dependency. I recommend asking this on the incubator list
> first and see how others are handling it before proceeding
> with any ziplib integration.
>
> Erik
>
>
> > Regards
> > Johnny
> >
> >
> >> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
> >> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
> >>
> >> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene
> because they use
> >> different open source licenses.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Eyal Post
> >> EPocalipse Software
> >> http://www.epocalipse.com
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> >> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> >> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> > Importance: High
> >> >
> >> > Hello George
> >> >
> >> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> >> >
> >> > Im on it now.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >> > Johnny
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> >> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> >> > >
> >> > >Hi Johnny,
> >> > >
> >> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant.
> Since .NET 1.1
> >> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> >> > -- thus, I
> >> > >left it out.
> >> > >
> >> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> >> > >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> >> > Lucene.Net
> >> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> >> > your code.
> >> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> >> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > >-- George Aroush
> >> > >
> >> > >-----Original Message-----
> >> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> >> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> >> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> >> > >Importance: High
> >> > >
> >> > >Hello George
> >> > >
> >> > >I have found this:
> >> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> >> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression
> is not yet
> >> > >implemented.
> >> > >
> >> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards
> >> > >Johnny
> >> > >
> >> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
> >> 1-4314-9b0
> >> >e-491
> >> >1fb2b2e6d
> >> >
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
> >> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
> >> cg_801459/pi_1004
> >> 813/ai_833884
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> > ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> > b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
>
>
>
Re: Compression Implementation
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On May 12, 2006, at 2:00 AM, J C wrote:
> This is exactly what im thinkin
> #ziplib is GNU General Public License
>
> How wud this license affect Lucene.Net ?
>
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL>
IANAL, but it is tricky business to blend GPL into an ASF project.
IIRC, ASF may not distribute (L)GPLd binaries or source code, but it
is ok to have a dependency that can be plugged in at run-time for
sure. The trickier part is a more built-in dependency. I recommend
asking this on the incubator list first and see how others are
handling it before proceeding with any ziplib integration.
Erik
> Regards
> Johnny
>
>
>> From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
>> Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
>>
>> I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene because they use
>> different open source licenses.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Eyal Post
>> EPocalipse Software
>> http://www.epocalipse.com
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
>> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>> > Importance: High
>> >
>> > Hello George
>> >
>> > Things are *not* always too bad.
>> >
>> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
>> >
>> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
>> >
>> > Im on it now.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Johnny
>> >
>> >
>> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
>> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
>> > >
>> > >Hi Johnny,
>> > >
>> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
>> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
>> > -- thus, I
>> > >left it out.
>> > >
>> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
>> > >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
>> > Lucene.Net
>> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
>> > your code.
>> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
>> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
>> > >
>> > >Regards,
>> > >
>> > >-- George Aroush
>> > >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
>> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
>> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
>> > >Importance: High
>> > >
>> > >Hello George
>> > >
>> > >I have found this:
>> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
>> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
>> > >implemented.
>> > >
>> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
>> > >
>> > >Regards
>> > >Johnny
>> > >
>> > >_________________________________________________________________
>> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
>> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
>> 1-4314-9b0
>> >e-491
>> >1fb2b2e6d
>> >
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
>> http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/
>> cg_801459/pi_1004
>> 813/ai_833884
>>
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail. http://
> ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-
> b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by J C <ro...@hotmail.com>.
This is exactly what im thinkin
#ziplib is GNU General Public License
How wud this license affect Lucene.Net ?
Regards
Johnny
>From: "Eyal Post" <ey...@epocalipse.com>
>Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:03:01 +0300
>
>I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene because they use
>different open source licenses.
>
>Regards,
>Eyal Post
>EPocalipse Software
>http://www.epocalipse.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > Importance: High
> >
> > Hello George
> >
> > Things are *not* always too bad.
> >
> > Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
> >
> > http://www.icsharpcode.net/
> >
> > Im on it now.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Johnny
> >
> >
> > >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> > >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> > >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> > >
> > >Hi Johnny,
> > >
> > >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> > >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> > -- thus, I
> > >left it out.
> > >
> > >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> > >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> > Lucene.Net
> > >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> > your code.
> > >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> > becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >-- George Aroush
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> > >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> > >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >Subject: Compression Implementation
> > >Importance: High
> > >
> > >Hello George
> > >
> > >I have found this:
> > >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> > >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> > >implemented.
> > >
> > >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >Johnny
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> > >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
>1-4314-9b0
> >e-491
> >1fb2b2e6d
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
>http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/cg_801459/pi_1004
>813/ai_833884
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by Eyal Post <ey...@epocalipse.com>.
I don't think you can use the #ziplib inside Lucene because they use
different open source licenses.
Regards,
Eyal Post
EPocalipse Software
http://www.epocalipse.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 3:02 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> Importance: High
>
> Hello George
>
> Things are *not* always too bad.
>
> Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
>
> http://www.icsharpcode.net/
>
> Im on it now.
>
> Cheers
> Johnny
>
>
> >From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
> >Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
> >Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
> >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
> >
> >Hi Johnny,
> >
> >I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1
> >doesn't have compression API, I couldn't implement this port
> -- thus, I
> >left it out.
> >
> >My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through
> >reflection, one can integrate a 3rd party compression into
> Lucene.Net
> >1.9. If you want to take on this part, please do and submit
> your code.
> >Your effort will be more then welcome and is a path to
> becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >-- George Aroush
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
> >To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Compression Implementation
> >Importance: High
> >
> >Hello George
> >
> >I have found this:
> >// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
> >in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
> >implemented.
> >
> >I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
> >
> >Regards
> >Johnny
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
> >http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b16
1-4314-9b0
>e-491
>1fb2b2e6d
>
_________________________________________________________________
Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/cg_801459/pi_1004
813/ai_833884
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by J C <ro...@hotmail.com>.
Hello George
Things are *not* always too bad.
Please take a look at the #ziplib which is .net 1.1 compliant.
http://www.icsharpcode.net/
Im on it now.
Cheers
Johnny
>From: "George Aroush" <ge...@aroush.net>
>Reply-To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>To: <lu...@incubator.apache.org>
>Subject: RE: Compression Implementation
>Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 09:05:15 -0400
>
>Hi Johnny,
>
>I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1 doesn't
>have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus, I left it
>out.
>
>My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through reflection,
>one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net 1.9. If you want
>to take on this part, please do and submit your code. Your effort will be
>more then welcome and is a path to becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
>
>Regards,
>
>-- George Aroush
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
>To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Compression Implementation
>Importance: High
>
>Hello George
>
>I have found this:
>// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
>in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
>implemented.
>
>I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
>
>Regards
>Johnny
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
>http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491
>1fb2b2e6d
>
_________________________________________________________________
Research and compare new cars side by side at carpoint.com.au
http://secure-au.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/a/ci_450304/et_2/cg_801459/pi_1004813/ai_833884
RE: Compression Implementation
Posted by George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net>.
Hi Johnny,
I have to keep Lucene.Net 1.9 .NET 1.1 compliant. Since .NET 1.1 doesn't
have compression API, I couldn't implement this port -- thus, I left it out.
My idea on how to resolve this is to use reflection and through reflection,
one can integrate a 3rd party compression into Lucene.Net 1.9. If you want
to take on this part, please do and submit your code. Your effort will be
more then welcome and is a path to becoming a committer for Lucene.Net.
Regards,
-- George Aroush
-----Original Message-----
From: J C [mailto:roamingcode@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:51 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Compression Implementation
Importance: High
Hello George
I have found this:
// {{Aroush-1.9}} for .NET 1.1, we can use reflection and ZLib?
in FieldsWriter.cs. It seems that the ZIP compression is not yet
implemented.
I would like to give it a try. Please confirm.
Regards
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Be the one of the first to try the NEW Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programPage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-491
1fb2b2e6d