You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com> on 2010/11/03 21:50:12 UTC
Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a
Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
http://examine.codeplex.com)
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja
http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie <
mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
> Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>
> M.
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com
>
> Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO, but
> they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com
>
> I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well... as far as I know
> >
> > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial license)
> > BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> >
> > Simone
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share one
> >> thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in terms
> >> of putting developers on the project or hiring top contributors and
> >> assigning the open source project to them as part of their work
> >> responsibilities. We have seen this over and over again. With Lucene
> being a perfect example.
> >>
> >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of its
> >> ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> >>
> >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own best
> interest to do so.
> >>
> >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> >>
> >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> >> up and down
> >> because:
> >>
> >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from Java
> >> is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend nights
> >> and weekends on it without financial reward.
> >>
> >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and rewrite
> >> some logic, it will need a significant number of highly capable
> >> developers with prior search experience. Putting a group like that
> >> together without financial backing would be very difficult.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> >>
> >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> >>
> >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and encourage
> >> other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft ecosystem
> >> is very much a top down world. Examples are set by Microsoft, and
> >> Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get partners involved.
> >>
> >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> >> this project going forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks to you all!
> >>
> >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> >> >
> >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> >> > that it is impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Ciaran
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Everyone,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
> >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can do
> >> > > it with ease; you don't need
> >> > the
> >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
> >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> >> > > (books, examples, support,
> >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> >> > > Lucene the
> >> > day
> >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> >> > > JLCA which
> >> > is
> >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In addition,
> >> > > since those are different tools, the output C# code may not be
> >> > > consistent with exiting
> >> Lucene.Net code.
> >> > If
> >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> >> > > layer;
> >> > the
> >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since I'm
> >> > > familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight where
> >> > > it
> >> falls short.
> >> > However, I
> >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back. I
> >> > > would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better than
> >> > > JLCA because if
> >> > such
> >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> >> > > In
> >> > another
> >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start a
> >> > > new
> >> > project
> >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> >> > > achieving
> >> > this
> >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over the
> >> > > years on this mailing list. If you start such a project, it
> >> > > shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> >> > you
> >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to make
> this happen.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes and
> >> > > APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> >> > > like I
> >> > never
> >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> >> > > part of
> >> it?
> >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a project
> >> > > at ASF
> >> > or
> >> > > somewhere else.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> >> > > Just
> >> > open
> >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> >> > > convert
> >> it.
> >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> >> > > support a wider
> >> > audience
> >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the source
> >> > > code,
> >> > or
> >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
> >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software over
> >> > > other
> >> > open
> >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> >> > > license model
> >> > of
> >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> >> > > demands of
> >> > its
> >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you are
> >> > > getting a
> >> > software
> >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up and
> >> > > support it. At
> >> > ASF,
> >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
> >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level of
> >> > standard.
> >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> >> > > 1.9 which
> >> > was
> >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to send
> >> > > us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> >> > > committer since
> >> > > 2004
> >> > (even
> >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when we
> >> > > added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed -- they
> >> > > took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When folks are
> >> > > saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say there is
> >> > > only 1 committer who has
> >> > done
> >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier, but
> >> > > just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't have
> >> > > the full fell of
> >> > .NET'nes
> >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know what
> >> > > you are talking
> >> about.
> >> > It
> >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by doing
> >> > > a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for deep Lucene
> >> > > or search engine expertise). It means existing Lucene resources
> >> > > are available for you. It means a bug in Java Lucene also exist
> >> > > in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java Lucene is what
> >> > > Lucene.Net will
> >> be.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project is
> >> > > stamped with,
> >> > holds
> >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out earlier,
> >> > > there hasn't been any official release other than the one I did
> >> > > way
> >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> >> > Having
> >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> >> > > does
> >> > injustice
> >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> >> > > find
> >> > reason
> >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> >> > > is,
> >> > unlike
> >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> >> > > actually get paid
> >> > to
> >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an after
> >> > > though even if
> >> > you
> >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
> >> > > This is also true
> >> > for
> >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but I
> >> > > also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> >> > > ported
> >> list:
> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/con
> >> > > tri
> >> > > b/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> >> > > discussions
> >> or
> >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> >> > > actual
> >> > results
> >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this subject
> >> > > sometime tomorrow.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- George
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nima
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nic Wise
> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If
> this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose
> them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Posted by Simone Chiaretta <si...@gmail.com>.
RavenDB is also using Lucene.Net as core for the product
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in
> their products.
>
> * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
> * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
> * BBC UK Motorgear site
> * Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
> * Autodesk
> * MindTouch
> * Bluewire Technologies - Epro
> * Koders.com - Black Duck Software
> * Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>
> I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on
> the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have
> permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as
> a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community
> Status)
>
> Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a
> Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
> http://examine.codeplex.com)
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
>
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie <
> mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
>
> > Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> > http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
> >
> > M.
> > -------------------------------------
> > Moray McConnachie
> > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> > Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com
> >
> > Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> > http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> > ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
> > but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com
> >
> > I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> > (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
> > <si...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Well... as far as I know
> > >
> > > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
> > > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> > >
> > > Simone
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> > >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> > >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>
> > >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
> > >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
> > >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
> > >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
> > >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
> > >> again. With Lucene
> > being a perfect example.
> > >>
> > >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
> > >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> > >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> > >>
> > >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> > >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> > >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> > >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
> > >> best
> > interest to do so.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> > >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> > >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> > >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> > contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> > >>
> > >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> > >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> > >> up and down
> > >> because:
> > >>
> > >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
> > >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
> > >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
> > >>
> > >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
> > >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
> > >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
> > >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult.
> > >>
> > >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> > >>
> > >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> > >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> > >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> > >>
> > >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
> > >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
> > >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
> > >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get
> partners involved.
> > >>
> > >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> > >> this project going forward.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks to you all!
> > >>
> > >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> > >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> > >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> > >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> > >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> > >> >
> > >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> > >> > that it is impossible.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ciaran
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one
> response.
> > >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> > >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> > >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
> > >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
> > >> > the
> > >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you
> go.
> > >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> > >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> > >> > > (books, examples, support,
> > >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> > >> > > Lucene the
> > >> > day
> > >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> > >> > > JLCA which
> > >> > is
> > >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> > >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> > >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
> > >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
> > >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
> > >> Lucene.Net code.
> > >> > If
> > >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> > >> > > layer;
> > >> > the
> > >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> > >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
> > >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
> > >> > > where it
> > >> falls short.
> > >> > However, I
> > >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
> > >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
> > >> > > than JLCA because if
> > >> > such
> > >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> > >> > > In
> > >> > another
> > >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
> > >> > > a new
> > >> > project
> > >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> > >> > > achieving
> > >> > this
> > >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
> > >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
> > >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> > >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> > >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> > >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> > >> > you
> > >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> > >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> > >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
> > >> > > make
> > this happen.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
> > >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> > >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> > >> > > like I
> > >> > never
> > >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> > >> > > part of
> > >> it?
> > >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
> > >> > > project at ASF
> > >> > or
> > >> > > somewhere else.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> > >> > > Just
> > >> > open
> > >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> > >> > > convert
> > >> it.
> > >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> > >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> > >> > > support a wider
> > >> > audience
> > >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
> > >> > > source code,
> > >> > or
> > >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release
> DLL.
> > >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene
> 3.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> > >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
> > >> > > over other
> > >> > open
> > >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> > >> > > license model
> > >> > of
> > >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> > >> > > demands of
> > >> > its
> > >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> > >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
> > >> > > are getting a
> > >> > software
> > >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> > >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
> > >> > > and support it. At
> > >> > ASF,
> > >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects
> fallow.
> > >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
> > >> > > of
> > >> > standard.
> > >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> > >> > > 1.9 which
> > >> > was
> > >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
> > >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> > >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> > >> > > committer since
> > >> > > 2004
> > >> > (even
> > >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
> > >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
> > >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
> > >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
> > >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
> > >> > done
> > >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's
> due.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> > >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
> > >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
> > >> > > have the full fell of
> > >> > .NET'nes
> > >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> > >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> > >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
> > >> > > what you are talking
> > >> about.
> > >> > It
> > >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
> > >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
> > >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
> > >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
> > >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
> > >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
> > >> be.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> > >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
> > >> > > is stamped with,
> > >> > holds
> > >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> > >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
> > >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
> > >> > > one I did way
> > >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> > >> > Having
> > >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> > >> > > does
> > >> > injustice
> > >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> > >> > > find
> > >> > reason
> > >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> > >> > > is,
> > >> > unlike
> > >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> > >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> > >> > > actually get paid
> > >> > to
> > >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> > >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
> > >> > > after though even if
> > >> > you
> > >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> > >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
> > >> > > This is also true
> > >> > for
> > >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
> > >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> > >> > > ported
> > >> list:
> > >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > tri
> > >> > > b/
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> > >> > > discussions
> > >> or
> > >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> > >> > > actual
> > >> > results
> > >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
> > >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -- George
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nima
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > twitter: @simonech
> > >
> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > > "Life is short, play hard"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nic Wise
> > t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> > b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> >
> > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
--
Simone Chiaretta
Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
twitter: @simonech
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
"Life is short, play hard"
RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Posted by Moray McConnachie <mm...@oxford-analytica.com>.
You are welcome to use our name as an endorsement, please if so give the
URL as http://www.oxan.com
Yours,
Moray
-------------------------------------
Moray McConnachie
Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: 05 November 2010 16:05
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community
Status)
Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET
in their products.
* IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
* Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
* BBC UK Motorgear site
* Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
* Autodesk
* MindTouch
* Bluewire Technologies - Epro
* Koders.com - Black Duck Software
* Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this
on the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure
we have permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps
to serve as a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community
Status)
Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with
a Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
http://examine.codeplex.com)
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja
http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie <
mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
> Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>
> M.
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com
>
> Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
> but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com
>
> I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
> <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well... as far as I know
> >
> > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
> > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> >
> > Simone
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
> >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
> >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
> >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
> >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
> >> again. With Lucene
> being a perfect example.
> >>
> >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
> >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> >>
> >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
> >> best
> interest to do so.
> >>
> >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> >>
> >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> >> up and down
> >> because:
> >>
> >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
> >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
> >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
> >>
> >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
> >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
> >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
> >> like that together without financial backing would be very
difficult.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> >>
> >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> >>
> >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
> >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
> >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
> >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get
partners involved.
> >>
> >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> >> this project going forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks to you all!
> >>
> >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> >> >
> >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> >> > that it is impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Ciaran
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Everyone,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one
response.
> >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
> >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
> >> > the
> >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you
go.
> >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> >> > > (books, examples, support,
> >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> >> > > Lucene the
> >> > day
> >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> >> > > JLCA which
> >> > is
> >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
> >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
> >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
> >> Lucene.Net code.
> >> > If
> >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> >> > > layer;
> >> > the
> >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
> >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
> >> > > where it
> >> falls short.
> >> > However, I
> >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
> >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
> >> > > than JLCA because if
> >> > such
> >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> >> > > In
> >> > another
> >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
> >> > > a new
> >> > project
> >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> >> > > achieving
> >> > this
> >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
> >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
> >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> >> > you
> >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
> >> > > make
> this happen.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
> >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> >> > > like I
> >> > never
> >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> >> > > part of
> >> it?
> >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
> >> > > project at ASF
> >> > or
> >> > > somewhere else.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> >> > > Just
> >> > open
> >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> >> > > convert
> >> it.
> >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> >> > > support a wider
> >> > audience
> >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
> >> > > source code,
> >> > or
> >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release
DLL.
> >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene
3.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
> >> > > over other
> >> > open
> >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> >> > > license model
> >> > of
> >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> >> > > demands of
> >> > its
> >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
> >> > > are getting a
> >> > software
> >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
> >> > > and support it. At
> >> > ASF,
> >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects
fallow.
> >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
> >> > > of
> >> > standard.
> >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> >> > > 1.9 which
> >> > was
> >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
> >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> >> > > committer since
> >> > > 2004
> >> > (even
> >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
> >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
> >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
> >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
> >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
> >> > done
> >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's
due.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
> >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
> >> > > have the full fell of
> >> > .NET'nes
> >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
> >> > > what you are talking
> >> about.
> >> > It
> >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
> >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
> >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
> >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
> >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
> >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
> >> be.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
> >> > > is stamped with,
> >> > holds
> >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
> >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
> >> > > one I did way
> >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> >> > Having
> >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> >> > > does
> >> > injustice
> >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand
ASF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> >> > > find
> >> > reason
> >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> >> > > is,
> >> > unlike
> >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> >> > > actually get paid
> >> > to
> >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
> >> > > after though even if
> >> > you
> >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need
done.
> >> > > This is also true
> >> > for
> >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader
need.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
> >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> >> > > ported
> >> list:
> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
> >> > > on
> >> > > tri
> >> > > b/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> >> > > discussions
> >> or
> >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> >> > > actual
> >> > results
> >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
> >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- George
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nima
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nic Wise
> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
Oxford Analytica Ltd
Registered in England: No. 1196703
5 Alfred Street, Oxford
United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET
Community Status) - Found word(s) list error in the Text body
Posted by Hans Merkl <hm...@hmerkl.com>.
It's being used for document search in my document discovery software Willa
Search
Hans Merkl
Right On Point, LLC
http://www.rightonpoint.us
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 14:02, Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are using it in our newly released Silverlight-based product Portal4Law
> (www.portal4law.com).
>
> Martin Amm wrote:
>
>> It's ok to put our name on the page: http://www.adenin.com, adenin
>> IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
>> Martin
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:05 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET
>> Community Status) - Found word(s) list error in the Text body
>> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in
>> their products.
>> * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
>> * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
>> * BBC UK Motorgear site
>> * Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
>> * Autodesk
>> * MindTouch
>> * Bluewire Technologies - Epro
>> * Koders.com - Black Duck Software
>> * Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>> I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on
>> the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have
>> permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as
>> a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
>> Phil
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
>> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community
>> Status)
>> Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a
>> Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
>> http://examine.codeplex.com)
>> Aaron Powell
>> Umbraco Ninja
>> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
>> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie <
>> mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
>> > Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
>> > http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>> >
>> > M.
>> > -------------------------------------
>> > Moray McConnachie
>> > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
>> > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
>> > Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
>> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> >
>> > Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com <http://www.topgear.com>
>> >
>> > Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
>> > http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
>> > ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
>> > but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com <http://www.comarchive.com>
>>
>> >
>> > I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
>> > (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
>> > <si...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Well... as far as I know
>> > >
>> > > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
>> > > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
>> > > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
>> > >
>> > > Simone
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
>> > >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
>> > >>
>> > >> Phil
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
>> > >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>> > >>
>> > >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
>> > >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
>> > >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
>> > >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
>> > >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
>> > >> again. With Lucene
>> > being a perfect example.
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
>> > >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
>> > >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
>> > >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
>> > >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
>> > >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
>> > >> best
>> > interest to do so.
>> > >>
>> > >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
>> > >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
>> > >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
>> > >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
>> > contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
>> > >>
>> > >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
>> > >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
>> > >> up and down
>> > >> because:
>> > >>
>> > >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
>> > >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
>> > >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
>> > >>
>> > >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
>> > >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
>> > >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
>> > >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult.
>> > >>
>> > >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
>> > >>
>> > >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
>> > >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
>> > >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
>> > >>
>> > >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
>> > >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
>> > >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
>> > >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get
>> partners involved.
>> > >>
>> > >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
>> > >> this project going forward.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks to you all!
>> > >>
>> > >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
>> > >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
>> > >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
>> > >> >wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
>> > >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
>> > >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
>> > >> > that it is impossible.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Ciaran
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Hi Everyone,
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one
>> response.
>> > >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
>> > >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
>> > >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
>> > >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you
>> go.
>> > >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
>> > >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
>> > >> > > (books, examples, support,
>> > >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
>> > >> > > Lucene the
>> > >> > day
>> > >> > > Java Lucene is released.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
>> > >> > > JLCA which
>> > >> > is
>> > >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
>> > >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
>> > >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
>> > >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
>> > >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
>> > >> Lucene.Net code.
>> > >> > If
>> > >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
>> > >> > > layer;
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
>> > >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
>> > >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
>> > >> > > where it
>> > >> falls short.
>> > >> > However, I
>> > >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
>> > >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
>> > >> > > than JLCA because if
>> > >> > such
>> > >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
>> > >> > > In
>> > >> > another
>> > >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
>> > >> > > a new
>> > >> > project
>> > >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
>> > >> > > achieving
>> > >> > this
>> > >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
>> > >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
>> > >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
>> > >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
>> > >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
>> > >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
>> > >> > you
>> > >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
>> > >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
>> > >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
>> > >> > > make
>> > this happen.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
>> > >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
>> > >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
>> > >> > > like I
>> > >> > never
>> > >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
>> > >> > > part of
>> > >> it?
>> > >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
>> > >> > > project at ASF
>> > >> > or
>> > >> > > somewhere else.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
>> > >> > > Just
>> > >> > open
>> > >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
>> > >> > > convert
>> > >> it.
>> > >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
>> > >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
>> > >> > > support a wider
>> > >> > audience
>> > >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
>> > >> > > source code,
>> > >> > or
>> > >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release
>> DLL.
>> > >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene
>> 3.0.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
>> > >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
>> > >> > > over other
>> > >> > open
>> > >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
>> > >> > > license model
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
>> > >> > > demands of
>> > >> > its
>> > >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
>> > >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
>> > >> > > are getting a
>> > >> > software
>> > >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
>> > >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
>> > >> > > and support it. At
>> > >> > ASF,
>> > >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects
>> fallow.
>> > >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
>> > >> > > of
>> > >> > standard.
>> > >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
>> > >> > > 1.9 which
>> > >> > was
>> > >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
>> > >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
>> > >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
>> > >> > > committer since
>> > >> > > 2004
>> > >> > (even
>> > >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
>> > >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
>> > >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
>> > >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
>> > >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
>> > >> > done
>> > >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's
>> due.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
>> > >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
>> > >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
>> > >> > > have the full fell of
>> > >> > .NET'nes
>> > >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
>> > >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
>> > >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
>> > >> > > what you are talking
>> > >> about.
>> > >> > It
>> > >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
>> > >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
>> > >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
>> > >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
>> > >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
>> > >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
>> > >> be.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
>> > >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
>> > >> > > is stamped with,
>> > >> > holds
>> > >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
>> > >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
>> > >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
>> > >> > > one I did way
>> > >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
>> > >> > Having
>> > >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
>> > >> > > does
>> > >> > injustice
>> > >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
>> > >> > > find
>> > >> > reason
>> > >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
>> > >> > > is,
>> > >> > unlike
>> > >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
>> > >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
>> > >> > > actually get paid
>> > >> > to
>> > >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
>> > >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
>> > >> > > after though even if
>> > >> > you
>> > >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
>> > >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
>> > >> > > This is also true
>> > >> > for
>> > >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader
>> need.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
>> > >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
>> > >> > > ported
>> > >> list:
>> > >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
>> > >> > > on
>> > >> > > tri
>> > >> > > b/
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
>> > >> > > discussions
>> > >> or
>> > >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
>> > >> > > actual
>> > >> > results
>> > >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
>> > >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Thanks,
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > -- George
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Nima
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Simone Chiaretta
>> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > > twitter: @simonech
>> > >
>> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> > > "Life is short, play hard"
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Nic Wise
>> > t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
>> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>> > b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > Disclaimer
>> >
>> > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
>> > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
>> > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > Oxford Analytica Ltd
>> > Registered in England: No. 1196703
>> > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
>> > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET
Community Status) - Found word(s) list error in the Text body
Posted by Ben Martz <be...@gmail.com>.
We are using it in our newly released Silverlight-based product Portal4Law (www.portal4law.com).
Martin Amm wrote:
> It's ok to put our name on the page: http://www.adenin.com, adenin IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
> Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:05 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status) - Found word(s) list error in the Text body
> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in their products.
> * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
> * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
> * BBC UK Motorgear site
> * Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
> * Autodesk
> * MindTouch
> * Bluewire Technologies - Epro
> * Koders.com - Black Duck Software
> * Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
> I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
> Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
> Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
> http://examine.codeplex.com)
> Aaron Powell
> Umbraco Ninja
> http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
> aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie < mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
> > Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> > http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
> >
> > M.
> > -------------------------------------
> > Moray McConnachie
> > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> > Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >
> > Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com <http://www.topgear.com>
> >
> > Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> > http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> > ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
> > but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com <http://www.comarchive.com>
> >
> > I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> > (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
> > <si...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Well... as far as I know
> > >
> > > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
> > > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> > >
> > > Simone
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> > >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> > >>
> > >> Phil
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> > >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> > >>
> > >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
> > >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
> > >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
> > >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
> > >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
> > >> again. With Lucene
> > being a perfect example.
> > >>
> > >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
> > >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> > >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> > >>
> > >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> > >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> > >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> > >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
> > >> best
> > interest to do so.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> > >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> > >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> > >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> > contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> > >>
> > >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> > >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> > >> up and down
> > >> because:
> > >>
> > >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
> > >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
> > >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
> > >>
> > >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
> > >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
> > >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
> > >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult.
> > >>
> > >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> > >>
> > >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> > >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> > >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> > >>
> > >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
> > >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
> > >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
> > >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get partners involved.
> > >>
> > >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> > >> this project going forward.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks to you all!
> > >>
> > >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> > >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> > >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> > >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> > >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> > >> >
> > >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> > >> > that it is impossible.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ciaran
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi Everyone,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
> > >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> > >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> > >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
> > >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
> > >> > the
> > >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
> > >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> > >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> > >> > > (books, examples, support,
> > >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> > >> > > Lucene the
> > >> > day
> > >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> > >> > > JLCA which
> > >> > is
> > >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> > >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> > >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
> > >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
> > >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
> > >> Lucene.Net code.
> > >> > If
> > >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> > >> > > layer;
> > >> > the
> > >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> > >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
> > >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
> > >> > > where it
> > >> falls short.
> > >> > However, I
> > >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
> > >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
> > >> > > than JLCA because if
> > >> > such
> > >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> > >> > > In
> > >> > another
> > >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
> > >> > > a new
> > >> > project
> > >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> > >> > > achieving
> > >> > this
> > >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
> > >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
> > >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> > >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> > >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> > >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> > >> > you
> > >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> > >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> > >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
> > >> > > make
> > this happen.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
> > >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> > >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> > >> > > like I
> > >> > never
> > >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> > >> > > part of
> > >> it?
> > >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
> > >> > > project at ASF
> > >> > or
> > >> > > somewhere else.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> > >> > > Just
> > >> > open
> > >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> > >> > > convert
> > >> it.
> > >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> > >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> > >> > > support a wider
> > >> > audience
> > >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
> > >> > > source code,
> > >> > or
> > >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
> > >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> > >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
> > >> > > over other
> > >> > open
> > >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> > >> > > license model
> > >> > of
> > >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> > >> > > demands of
> > >> > its
> > >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> > >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
> > >> > > are getting a
> > >> > software
> > >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> > >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
> > >> > > and support it. At
> > >> > ASF,
> > >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
> > >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
> > >> > > of
> > >> > standard.
> > >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> > >> > > 1.9 which
> > >> > was
> > >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
> > >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> > >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> > >> > > committer since
> > >> > > 2004
> > >> > (even
> > >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
> > >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
> > >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
> > >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
> > >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
> > >> > done
> > >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> > >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
> > >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
> > >> > > have the full fell of
> > >> > .NET'nes
> > >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> > >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> > >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
> > >> > > what you are talking
> > >> about.
> > >> > It
> > >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
> > >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
> > >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
> > >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
> > >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
> > >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
> > >> be.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> > >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
> > >> > > is stamped with,
> > >> > holds
> > >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> > >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
> > >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
> > >> > > one I did way
> > >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> > >> > Having
> > >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> > >> > > does
> > >> > injustice
> > >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> > >> > > find
> > >> > reason
> > >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> > >> > > is,
> > >> > unlike
> > >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> > >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> > >> > > actually get paid
> > >> > to
> > >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> > >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
> > >> > > after though even if
> > >> > you
> > >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> > >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
> > >> > > This is also true
> > >> > for
> > >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
> > >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> > >> > > ported
> > >> list:
> > >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > tri
> > >> > > b/
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> > >> > > discussions
> > >> or
> > >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> > >> > > actual
> > >> > results
> > >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
> > >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -- George
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nima
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simone Chiaretta
> > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > > twitter: @simonech
> > >
> > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > > "Life is short, play hard"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nic Wise
> > t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> > b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Disclaimer
> >
> > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
> >
> > Oxford Analytica Ltd
> > Registered in England: No. 1196703
> > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
RE: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
- Found word(s) list error in the Text body
Posted by Martin Amm <Ma...@adenin.com>.
It's ok to put our name on the page: http://www.adenin.com, adenin IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Haack [mailto:philha@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:05 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [SPAM?] - RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status) - Found word(s) list error in the Text body
Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in their products.
* IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
* Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
* BBC UK Motorgear site
* Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
* Autodesk
* MindTouch
* Bluewire Technologies - Epro
* Koders.com - Black Duck Software
* Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
http://examine.codeplex.com)
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja
http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie < mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
> Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>
> M.
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com
>
> Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
> but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com
>
> I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
> <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well... as far as I know
> >
> > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
> > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> >
> > Simone
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
> >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
> >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
> >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
> >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
> >> again. With Lucene
> being a perfect example.
> >>
> >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
> >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> >>
> >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
> >> best
> interest to do so.
> >>
> >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> >>
> >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> >> up and down
> >> because:
> >>
> >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
> >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
> >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
> >>
> >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
> >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
> >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
> >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> >>
> >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> >>
> >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
> >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
> >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
> >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get partners involved.
> >>
> >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> >> this project going forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks to you all!
> >>
> >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> >> >
> >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> >> > that it is impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Ciaran
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Everyone,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
> >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
> >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
> >> > the
> >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
> >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> >> > > (books, examples, support,
> >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> >> > > Lucene the
> >> > day
> >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> >> > > JLCA which
> >> > is
> >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
> >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
> >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
> >> Lucene.Net code.
> >> > If
> >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> >> > > layer;
> >> > the
> >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
> >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
> >> > > where it
> >> falls short.
> >> > However, I
> >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
> >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
> >> > > than JLCA because if
> >> > such
> >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> >> > > In
> >> > another
> >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
> >> > > a new
> >> > project
> >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> >> > > achieving
> >> > this
> >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
> >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
> >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> >> > you
> >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
> >> > > make
> this happen.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
> >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> >> > > like I
> >> > never
> >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> >> > > part of
> >> it?
> >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
> >> > > project at ASF
> >> > or
> >> > > somewhere else.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> >> > > Just
> >> > open
> >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> >> > > convert
> >> it.
> >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> >> > > support a wider
> >> > audience
> >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
> >> > > source code,
> >> > or
> >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
> >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
> >> > > over other
> >> > open
> >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> >> > > license model
> >> > of
> >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> >> > > demands of
> >> > its
> >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
> >> > > are getting a
> >> > software
> >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
> >> > > and support it. At
> >> > ASF,
> >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
> >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
> >> > > of
> >> > standard.
> >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> >> > > 1.9 which
> >> > was
> >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
> >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> >> > > committer since
> >> > > 2004
> >> > (even
> >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
> >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
> >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
> >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
> >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
> >> > done
> >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
> >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
> >> > > have the full fell of
> >> > .NET'nes
> >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
> >> > > what you are talking
> >> about.
> >> > It
> >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
> >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
> >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
> >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
> >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
> >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
> >> be.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
> >> > > is stamped with,
> >> > holds
> >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
> >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
> >> > > one I did way
> >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> >> > Having
> >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> >> > > does
> >> > injustice
> >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> >> > > find
> >> > reason
> >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> >> > > is,
> >> > unlike
> >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> >> > > actually get paid
> >> > to
> >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
> >> > > after though even if
> >> > you
> >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
> >> > > This is also true
> >> > for
> >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
> >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> >> > > ported
> >> list:
> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
> >> > > on
> >> > > tri
> >> > > b/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> >> > > discussions
> >> or
> >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> >> > > actual
> >> > results
> >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
> >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- George
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nima
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nic Wise
> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Posted by Trevor Watson <tw...@datassimilate.com>.
Lucene.NET is used by our most recent electronic document forensic
software. More information can be found at http://www.psearch.ca
Company is DATAssimilate Systems Inc.
On 11/05/2010 2:10 PM, Nic Wise wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 16:04, Phil Haack<ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in their products.
>>
>> * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
>> * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
>> * BBC UK Motorgear site
> (for the Nth time) this is Top Gear - www.topgear.com (not Motorgear,
> which doesn't exist)
>
> Feel free to add ComArchive (www.comarchive.com)
>
> Possibly add Quest Archive Manager, tho I don't have permission :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush<ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
>>>>>>> The points is in no significant order or priority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
>>>>>>> Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
>>>>>>> exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
>>>>>>> do it with ease; you don't need
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
>>>>>>> With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
>>>>>>> being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
>>>>>>> (books, examples, support,
>>>>>>> etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
>>>>>>> Lucene the
>>>>>> day
>>>>>>> Java Lucene is released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
>>>>>>> JLCA which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
>>>>>>> that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
>>>>>>> analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
>>>>>>> addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
>>>>>>> may not be consistent with exiting
>>>>> Lucene.Net code.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
>>>>>>> layer;
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
>>>>>>> existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
>>>>>>> I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
>>>>>>> where it
>>>>> falls short.
>>>>>> However, I
>>>>>>> would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
>>>>>>> I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
>>>>>>> than JLCA because if
>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
>>>>>>> a new
>>>>>> project
>>>>>>> at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
>>>>>>> achieving
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
>>>>>>> the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
>>>>>>> it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
>>>>>>> produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
>>>>>>> Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
>>>>>>> addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
>>>>>>> (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
>>>>>>> knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
>>>>>>> make
>>> this happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
>>>>>>> and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
>>>>>>> http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
>>>>>>> like I
>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
>>>>>>> part of
>>>>> it?
>>>>>>> Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
>>>>>>> project at ASF
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> somewhere else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>> open
>>>>>>> the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
>>>>>>> convert
>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
>>>>>>> compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
>>>>>>> support a wider
>>>>>> audience
>>>>>>> as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
>>>>>>> source code,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
>>>>>>> Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
>>>>>>> organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
>>>>>>> over other
>>>>>> open
>>>>>>> source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
>>>>>>> license model
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
>>>>>>> demands of
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
>>>>>>> which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
>>>>>>> are getting a
>>>>>> software
>>>>>>> which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
>>>>>>> about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
>>>>>>> and support it. At
>>>>>> ASF,
>>>>>>> there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
>>>>>>> Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>> Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
>>>>>>> 1.9 which
>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
>>>>>>> send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
>>>>>>> dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
>>>>>>> committer since
>>>>>>> 2004
>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>> prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
>>>>>>> we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
>>>>>>> they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
>>>>>>> folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
>>>>>>> there is only 1 committer who has
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
>>>>>>> say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
>>>>>>> but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
>>>>>>> have the full fell of
>>>>>> .NET'nes
>>>>>>> (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
>>>>>>> that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
>>>>>>> question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
>>>>>>> what you are talking
>>>>> about.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
>>>>>>> doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
>>>>>>> deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
>>>>>>> Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
>>>>>>> Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
>>>>>>> Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
>>>>>>> mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
>>>>>>> is stamped with,
>>>>>> holds
>>>>>>> to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
>>>>>>> graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
>>>>>>> earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
>>>>>>> one I did way
>>>>> back in 2006 for 1.9.
>>>>>> Having
>>>>>>> ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>> injustice
>>>>>>> to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
>>>>>>> is,
>>>>>> unlike
>>>>>>> other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
>>>>>>> else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
>>>>>>> actually get paid
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
>>>>>>> or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
>>>>>>> after though even if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
>>>>>>> most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
>>>>>>> This is also true
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
>>>>>>> I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
>>>>>>> ported
>>>>> list:
>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> tri
>>>>>>> b/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
>>>>>>> discussions
>>>>> or
>>>>>>> questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> results
>>>>>>> done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
>>>>>>> subject sometime tomorrow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- George
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Nima
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simone Chiaretta
>>>> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>>>> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>>>> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>>>> twitter: @simonech
>>>>
>>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>>>> "Life is short, play hard"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nic Wise
>>> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Disclaimer
>>>
>>> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
>>> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
>>> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Oxford Analytica Ltd
>>> Registered in England: No. 1196703
>>> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
>>> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Posted by Nic Wise <ni...@fastchicken.co.nz>.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 16:04, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in their products.
>
> * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
> * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
> * BBC UK Motorgear site
(for the Nth time) this is Top Gear - www.topgear.com (not Motorgear,
which doesn't exist)
Feel free to add ComArchive (www.comarchive.com)
Possibly add Quest Archive Manager, tho I don't have permission :)
>> >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi Everyone,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
>> >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
>> >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
>> >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
>> >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
>> >> > the
>> >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
>> >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
>> >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
>> >> > > (books, examples, support,
>> >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
>> >> > > Lucene the
>> >> > day
>> >> > > Java Lucene is released.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
>> >> > > JLCA which
>> >> > is
>> >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
>> >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
>> >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
>> >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
>> >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
>> >> Lucene.Net code.
>> >> > If
>> >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
>> >> > > layer;
>> >> > the
>> >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
>> >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
>> >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
>> >> > > where it
>> >> falls short.
>> >> > However, I
>> >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
>> >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
>> >> > > than JLCA because if
>> >> > such
>> >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
>> >> > > In
>> >> > another
>> >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
>> >> > > a new
>> >> > project
>> >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
>> >> > > achieving
>> >> > this
>> >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
>> >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
>> >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
>> >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
>> >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
>> >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
>> >> > you
>> >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
>> >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
>> >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
>> >> > > make
>> this happen.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
>> >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
>> >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
>> >> > > like I
>> >> > never
>> >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
>> >> > > part of
>> >> it?
>> >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
>> >> > > project at ASF
>> >> > or
>> >> > > somewhere else.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
>> >> > > Just
>> >> > open
>> >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
>> >> > > convert
>> >> it.
>> >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
>> >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
>> >> > > support a wider
>> >> > audience
>> >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
>> >> > > source code,
>> >> > or
>> >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
>> >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
>> >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
>> >> > > over other
>> >> > open
>> >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
>> >> > > license model
>> >> > of
>> >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
>> >> > > demands of
>> >> > its
>> >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
>> >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
>> >> > > are getting a
>> >> > software
>> >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
>> >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
>> >> > > and support it. At
>> >> > ASF,
>> >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
>> >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
>> >> > > of
>> >> > standard.
>> >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
>> >> > > 1.9 which
>> >> > was
>> >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
>> >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
>> >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
>> >> > > committer since
>> >> > > 2004
>> >> > (even
>> >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
>> >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
>> >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
>> >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
>> >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
>> >> > done
>> >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
>> >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
>> >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
>> >> > > have the full fell of
>> >> > .NET'nes
>> >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
>> >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
>> >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
>> >> > > what you are talking
>> >> about.
>> >> > It
>> >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
>> >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
>> >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
>> >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
>> >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
>> >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
>> >> be.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
>> >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
>> >> > > is stamped with,
>> >> > holds
>> >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
>> >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
>> >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
>> >> > > one I did way
>> >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
>> >> > Having
>> >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
>> >> > > does
>> >> > injustice
>> >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
>> >> > > find
>> >> > reason
>> >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
>> >> > > is,
>> >> > unlike
>> >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
>> >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
>> >> > > actually get paid
>> >> > to
>> >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
>> >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
>> >> > > after though even if
>> >> > you
>> >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
>> >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
>> >> > > This is also true
>> >> > for
>> >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
>> >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
>> >> > > ported
>> >> list:
>> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > tri
>> >> > > b/
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
>> >> > > discussions
>> >> or
>> >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
>> >> > > actual
>> >> > results
>> >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
>> >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- George
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Nima
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Simone Chiaretta
>> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
>> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
>> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
>> > twitter: @simonech
>> >
>> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
>> > "Life is short, play hard"
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nic Wise
>> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
>> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Disclaimer
>>
>> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
>> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
>> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>>
>> Oxford Analytica Ltd
>> Registered in England: No. 1196703
>> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
>> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
--
Nic Wise
t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
mobileAgent (for FreeAgent): get your accounts in your pocket.
http://goo.gl/IuBU
RE: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Posted by Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com>.
Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in their products.
* IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite
* Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com
* BBC UK Motorgear site
* Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft)
* Autodesk
* MindTouch
* Bluewire Technologies - Epro
* Koders.com - Black Duck Software
* Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as a starting point in trying to drum up support. :)
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community Status)
Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine (
http://examine.codeplex.com)
Aaron Powell
Umbraco Ninja
http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype:
aaron.l.powell | MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie < mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com> wrote:
> Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at
> http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx
>
> M.
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nic Wise [mailto:nicw@fastchicken.co.nz]
> Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com
>
> Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) -
> http://www.quest.com/archive_manager
> ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO,
> but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com
>
> I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more...
> (kinda...) but I know they use it :)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta
> <si...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Well... as far as I know
> >
> > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore
> > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial
> > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site
> >
> > Simone
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <ph...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET
> >> (who are willing to share that fact?).
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nimadi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
> >>
> >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share
> >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in
> >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top
> >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part
> >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over
> >> again. With Lucene
> being a perfect example.
> >>
> >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of
> >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete
> >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies.
> >>
> >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net.
> >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer
> >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit
> >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own
> >> best
> interest to do so.
> >>
> >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft
> >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has
> >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by
> >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top
> contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby).
> >>
> >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with
> >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go
> >> up and down
> >> because:
> >>
> >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from
> >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend
> >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward.
> >>
> >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and
> >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly
> >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group
> >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is:
> >>
> >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that
> >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about
> >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers.
> >>
> >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and
> >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft
> >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by
> >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get partners involved.
> >>
> >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of
> >> this project going forward.
> >>
> >> Thanks to you all!
> >>
> >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of
> >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty
> >> <ciaran.roarty@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why
> >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the
> >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood?
> >> >
> >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see
> >> > that it is impossible.
> >> >
> >> > Ciaran
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <ge...@aroush.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Everyone,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.
> >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with
> >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to
> >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can
> >> > > do it with ease; you don't need
> >> > the
> >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you go.
> >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's
> >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources
> >> > > (books, examples, support,
> >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of
> >> > > Lucene the
> >> > day
> >> > > Java Lucene is released.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside
> >> > > JLCA which
> >> > is
> >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind
> >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is
> >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In
> >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code
> >> > > may not be consistent with exiting
> >> Lucene.Net code.
> >> > If
> >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API
> >> > > layer;
> >> > the
> >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with
> >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since
> >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight
> >> > > where it
> >> falls short.
> >> > However, I
> >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.
> >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better
> >> > > than JLCA because if
> >> > such
> >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.
> >> > > In
> >> > another
> >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start
> >> > > a new
> >> > project
> >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net
> >> > > achieving
> >> > this
> >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over
> >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project,
> >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will
> >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing
> >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In
> >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> >> > you
> >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene
> >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good
> >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to
> >> > > make
> this happen.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes
> >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
> >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks
> >> > > like I
> >> > never
> >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only
> >> > > part of
> >> it?
> >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a
> >> > > project at ASF
> >> > or
> >> > > somewhere else.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).
> >> > > Just
> >> > open
> >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to
> >> > > convert
> >> it.
> >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common
> >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can
> >> > > support a wider
> >> > audience
> >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the
> >> > > source code,
> >> > or
> >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.
> >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and
> >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software
> >> > > over other
> >> > open
> >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The
> >> > > license model
> >> > of
> >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF
> >> > > demands of
> >> > its
> >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project,
> >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you
> >> > > are getting a
> >> > software
> >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows
> >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up
> >> > > and support it. At
> >> > ASF,
> >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
> >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level
> >> > > of
> >> > standard.
> >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene
> >> > > 1.9 which
> >> > was
> >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to
> >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more
> >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole
> >> > > committer since
> >> > > 2004
> >> > (even
> >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when
> >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed --
> >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When
> >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say
> >> > > there is only 1 committer who has
> >> > done
> >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to
> >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier,
> >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't
> >> > > have the full fell of
> >> > .NET'nes
> >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact
> >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a
> >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know
> >> > > what you are talking
> >> about.
> >> > It
> >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by
> >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for
> >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing
> >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java
> >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java
> >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will
> >> be.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is
> >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project
> >> > > is stamped with,
> >> > holds
> >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into
> >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out
> >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the
> >> > > one I did way
> >> back in 2006 for 1.9.
> >> > Having
> >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project
> >> > > does
> >> > injustice
> >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to
> >> > > find
> >> > reason
> >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it
> >> > > is,
> >> > unlike
> >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere
> >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who
> >> > > actually get paid
> >> > to
> >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles
> >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an
> >> > > after though even if
> >> > you
> >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will
> >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.
> >> > > This is also true
> >> > for
> >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but
> >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the
> >> > > ported
> >> list:
> >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c
> >> > > on
> >> > > tri
> >> > > b/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further
> >> > > discussions
> >> or
> >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting
> >> > > actual
> >> > results
> >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this
> >> > > subject sometime tomorrow.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > -- George
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nima
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Simone Chiaretta
> > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> > twitter: @simonech
> >
> > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> > "Life is short, play hard"
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nic Wise
> t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken |
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
> b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ |
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
>
> This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged.
> If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or
> disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible.
>
> Oxford Analytica Ltd
> Registered in England: No. 1196703
> 5 Alfred Street, Oxford
> United Kingdom, OX1 4EH
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>