You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/01 22:03:17 UTC
Offer of help vis Lucere project
All,
You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting directly
involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork Lucene.Net,
but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant offer
for development help. See below:
Dear Lucere team,
I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have project in
our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly on
analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), but
also on producing very high quality of code and using most common approach
to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so
on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to build
something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this course.
They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything in
best way.
As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing some
bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in designing
such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build in
that way.
Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
Best regards,
Bartlomiej Szczepanik
Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
---
If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and see if
we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have 12
new developers that want to work on the project... What should they do, and
how will we coordinate their work?
His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't really
fall under the fold of "create and design".
We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some new
.NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group to do
that work?
We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an automated
porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus on
that?
Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
remoteing model that was removed)?
Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more maintainable
(have you seen that code? eek)...
There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
Thanks,
Troy
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.
Oh yes. :-) Its currently on par with Katta, in that it serves up distributed indexes for query. All of the create/update/delete stuff remains, along with advanced query stuff like facets, function queries, DisMaxParser, etc.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From the email it seems like they want a substantial project. If you have a project nearing completion is there still enough work for them to take on and really make something? or is it upgrades / fixes?
>
> Also - sweet!
>
> ~P
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> CC: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> From: zgramana@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:13:06 -0400
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> I have a fledgling OSS project that I'm close to making public that solves distributed search (takes cues from SOLR and ElasticSearch). I would definitely welcome help in building it out, and would unwrap it early if they are interested (I was otherwise going to wait until after we finish deploying it on a client project).
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
>>> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
>>> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
>>> remoteing model that was removed)?
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by "Oren Eini (Ayende Rahien)" <ay...@ayende.com>.
Fully agree on that!
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would also add that .NET desperately needs a good distributed hash
> implementation using either a chord or gossip protocol. SolrCloud and
> ElasticSearch both leverage Apache Zookeeper for managing cluster
> configuration. It's something that I've been having to manager around using
> other methods. That would a big win not only for Solis (my project) but for
> anyone else doing distributed app dev on .NET!
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From the email it seems like they want a substantial project. If you
> have a project nearing completion is there still enough work for them to
> take on and really make something? or is it upgrades / fixes?
> >
> > Also - sweet!
> >
> > ~P
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> CC: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> From: zgramana@gmail.com
> >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:13:06 -0400
> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>
> >> I have a fledgling OSS project that I'm close to making public that
> solves distributed search (takes cues from SOLR and ElasticSearch). I would
> definitely welcome help in building it out, and would unwrap it early if
> they are interested (I was otherwise going to wait until after we finish
> deploying it on a client project).
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application
> that
> >>> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> >>> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> >>> remoteing model that was removed)?
>
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.
I would also add that .NET desperately needs a good distributed hash implementation using either a chord or gossip protocol. SolrCloud and ElasticSearch both leverage Apache Zookeeper for managing cluster configuration. It's something that I've been having to manager around using other methods. That would a big win not only for Solis (my project) but for anyone else doing distributed app dev on .NET!
On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From the email it seems like they want a substantial project. If you have a project nearing completion is there still enough work for them to take on and really make something? or is it upgrades / fixes?
>
> Also - sweet!
>
> ~P
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> CC: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> From: zgramana@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:13:06 -0400
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> I have a fledgling OSS project that I'm close to making public that solves distributed search (takes cues from SOLR and ElasticSearch). I would definitely welcome help in building it out, and would unwrap it early if they are interested (I was otherwise going to wait until after we finish deploying it on a client project).
>>
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
>>> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
>>> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
>>> remoteing model that was removed)?
RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
>From the email it seems like they want a substantial project. If you have a project nearing completion is there still enough work for them to take on and really make something? or is it upgrades / fixes?
Also - sweet!
~P
----------------------------------------
> CC: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> From: zgramana@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:13:06 -0400
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> I have a fledgling OSS project that I'm close to making public that solves distributed search (takes cues from SOLR and ElasticSearch). I would definitely welcome help in building it out, and would unwrap it early if they are interested (I was otherwise going to wait until after we finish deploying it on a client project).
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
> > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > remoteing model that was removed)?
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Zachary Gramana <zg...@gmail.com>.
I have a fledgling OSS project that I'm close to making public that solves distributed search (takes cues from SOLR and ElasticSearch). I would definitely welcome help in building it out, and would unwrap it early if they are interested (I was otherwise going to wait until after we finish deploying it on a client project).
On Oct 1, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> remoteing model that was removed)?
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
Nah, we rather focus on v3.6 and v4
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, unfortunately, this guy never got back to me even though I followed
> up a couple of times.
>
> Sorry to get everyone all excited :)
>
> Good news is, we got a bunch of focus on what we *could* develop if we had
> more people involved, so maybe if we just find more people we can get those
> project rolling. Might be a good idea to create a wiki of "Things We'd Like
> To Pursue" describing all these various projects, so potentially interested
> developers could pick from that list and offer to help.
>
> -T
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache
> > compatible. LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl (
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
> > > Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene
> > http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/
> > >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200
> > >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> > >> From: itamar@code972.com
> > >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >>
> > >> I'll work on that
> > >>
> > >> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java
> code
> > >> porting than an automated tool to do that
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> > >> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license,
> so
> > I
> > >> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well
> if
> > we
> > >> > asked.
> > >> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
> > >> > >
> > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> > >> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a
> > microsoft
> > >> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to
> them
> > for
> > >> > > that?
> > >> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them
> > imo,
> > >> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen
> porting
> > would
> > >> > > get my votes
> > >> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> > >> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> > >> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > >> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of
> Lucene.NET
> > >> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not
> > SOLR) , a
> > >> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in
> > terms of
> > >> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev
> > should do
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or
> thinking
> > of an
> > >> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <
> thoward37@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > All,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before
> getting
> > >> > > directly
> > >> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
> > >> > > Lucene.Net,
> > >> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I
> > still
> > >> > get
> > >> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I
> > >> > generally
> > >> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an
> > significant
> > >> > > offer
> > >> > > > > for development help. See below:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Dear Lucere team,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of
> Science
> > and
> > >> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we
> have
> > >> > > project in
> > >> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated
> > mainly
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and
> > so on),
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most
> > common
> > >> > > approach
> > >> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing,
> > IoC and
> > >> > > so
> > >> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We
> > think
> > >> > > that we
> > >> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open
> > project
> > >> > like
> > >> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of
> > very
> > >> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be
> > enough to
> > >> > > build
> > >> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading
> > this
> > >> > > course.
> > >> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
> > >> > everything
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > best way.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than
> > fixing
> > >> > > some
> > >> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in
> > highly
> > >> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein
> > in
> > >> > > designing
> > >> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we
> can
> > >> > build
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > that way.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be
> > delighted
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > >> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > >> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > ---
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with
> Bartlomeij
> > and
> > >> > > see if
> > >> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do
> > suddenly have
> > >> > > 12
> > >> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should
> > they
> > >> > > do, and
> > >> > > > > how will we coordinate their work?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting
> > doesn't
> > >> > > really
> > >> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on
> > top of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or
> > incorporating some
> > >> > > new
> > >> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the
> > baseline
> > >> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the
> > group
> > >> > > to do
> > >> > > > > that work?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> > >> > > automated
> > >> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding
> > work
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they
> could
> > >> > focus
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > that?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search
> > application
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is
> > unique to
> > >> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back
> > the .NET
> > >> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> > >> > > maintainable
> > >> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > Troy
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
Well, unfortunately, this guy never got back to me even though I followed
up a couple of times.
Sorry to get everyone all excited :)
Good news is, we got a bunch of focus on what we *could* develop if we had
more people involved, so maybe if we just find more people we can get those
project rolling. Might be a good idea to create a wiki of "Things We'd Like
To Pursue" describing all these various projects, so potentially interested
developers could pick from that list and offer to help.
-T
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache
> compatible. LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though.
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl (
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
> > Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene
> http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/
> >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200
> >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> >> From: itamar@code972.com
> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>
> >> I'll work on that
> >>
> >> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code
> >> porting than an automated tool to do that
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> >> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so
> I
> >> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if
> we
> >> > asked.
> >> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
> >> > >
> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> >> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a
> microsoft
> >> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them
> for
> >> > > that?
> >> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them
> imo,
> >> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting
> would
> >> > > get my votes
> >> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> >> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> >> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> >> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> >> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not
> SOLR) , a
> >> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in
> terms of
> >> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev
> should do
> >> > a
> >> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking
> of an
> >> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > All,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
> >> > > directly
> >> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
> >> > > Lucene.Net,
> >> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I
> still
> >> > get
> >> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I
> >> > generally
> >> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an
> significant
> >> > > offer
> >> > > > > for development help. See below:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Dear Lucere team,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science
> and
> >> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
> >> > > project in
> >> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated
> mainly
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and
> so on),
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most
> common
> >> > > approach
> >> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing,
> IoC and
> >> > > so
> >> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We
> think
> >> > > that we
> >> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open
> project
> >> > like
> >> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of
> very
> >> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be
> enough to
> >> > > build
> >> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading
> this
> >> > > course.
> >> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
> >> > everything
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > best way.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than
> fixing
> >> > > some
> >> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in
> highly
> >> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein
> in
> >> > > designing
> >> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can
> >> > build
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > that way.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be
> delighted
> >> > to
> >> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> >> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> >> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ---
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij
> and
> >> > > see if
> >> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do
> suddenly have
> >> > > 12
> >> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should
> they
> >> > > do, and
> >> > > > > how will we coordinate their work?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting
> doesn't
> >> > > really
> >> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on
> top of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or
> incorporating some
> >> > > new
> >> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the
> baseline
> >> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the
> group
> >> > > to do
> >> > > > > that work?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> >> > > automated
> >> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding
> work
> >> > to
> >> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could
> >> > focus
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > that?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search
> application
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is
> unique to
> >> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back
> the .NET
> >> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> >> > > maintainable
> >> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Troy
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >
>
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
I think Azure directory is under the MS-LPL, which isn't Apache
compatible. LinqtoLucene is MS-PL and should be compatible, though.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
> Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> From: itamar@code972.com
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> I'll work on that
>>
>> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code
>> porting than an automated tool to do that
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
>> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I
>> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we
>> > asked.
>> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
>> > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
>> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft
>> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for
>> > > that?
>> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo,
>> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would
>> > > get my votes
>> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
>> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
>> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
>> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
>> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
>> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do
>> > a
>> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
>> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > All,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
>> > > directly
>> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
>> > > Lucene.Net,
>> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still
>> > get
>> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I
>> > generally
>> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant
>> > > offer
>> > > > > for development help. See below:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dear Lucere team,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
>> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
>> > > project in
>> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly
>> > > on
>> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on),
>> > > but
>> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common
>> > > approach
>> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and
>> > > so
>> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think
>> > > that we
>> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project
>> > like
>> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
>> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to
>> > > build
>> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
>> > > course.
>> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
>> > everything
>> > > in
>> > > > > best way.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
>> > > some
>> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
>> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in
>> > > designing
>> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can
>> > build
>> > > in
>> > > > > that way.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted
>> > to
>> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
>> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
>> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ---
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
>> > > see if
>> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have
>> > > 12
>> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they
>> > > do, and
>> > > > > how will we coordinate their work?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
>> > > really
>> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of
>> > the
>> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some
>> > > new
>> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
>> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group
>> > > to do
>> > > > > that work?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
>> > > automated
>> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work
>> > to
>> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could
>> > focus
>> > > on
>> > > > > that?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application
>> > > that
>> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
>> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
>> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
>> > > maintainable
>> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Troy
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>
RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
fyi, looks like Ms-pl is compatible with asl (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html).
Two projects I keep track off, the azure library, and linq to lucene http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:41:42 +0200
> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> I'll work on that
>
> And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code
> porting than an automated tool to do that
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
> currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I
> > wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we
> > asked.
> > On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
> > > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> > > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft
> > > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for
> > > that?
> > > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo,
> > > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would
> > > get my votes
> > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> > > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> > > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> > > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
> > > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
> > > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do
> > a
> > > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
> > > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
> > > directly
> > > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
> > > Lucene.Net,
> > > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still
> > get
> > > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I
> > generally
> > > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant
> > > offer
> > > > > for development help. See below:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Lucere team,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> > > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
> > > project in
> > > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly
> > > on
> > > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on),
> > > but
> > > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common
> > > approach
> > > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and
> > > so
> > > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think
> > > that we
> > > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project
> > like
> > > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> > > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to
> > > build
> > > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
> > > course.
> > > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
> > everything
> > > in
> > > > > best way.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
> > > some
> > > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> > > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in
> > > designing
> > > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can
> > build
> > > in
> > > > > that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted
> > to
> > > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
> > > see if
> > > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have
> > > 12
> > > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they
> > > do, and
> > > > > how will we coordinate their work?
> > > > >
> > > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
> > > really
> > > > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> > > > >
> > > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of
> > the
> > > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some
> > > new
> > > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> > > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group
> > > to do
> > > > > that work?
> > > > >
> > > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> > > automated
> > > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work
> > to
> > > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could
> > focus
> > > on
> > > > > that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application
> > > that
> > > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > > > > remoteing model that was removed)?
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> > > maintainable
> > > > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Troy
> > > > >
> > >
> >
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
I'll work on that
And again - I would rather see a decent R# plugin to aid with Java code
porting than an automated tool to do that
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Christopher Currens <
currens.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I
> wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we
> asked.
> On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
> > http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> > It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft
> > guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for
> > that?
> > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo,
> > although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would
> > get my votes
> > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> > > From: itamar@code972.com
> > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> > >
> > > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> > > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
> > > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
> > > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do
> a
> > > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
> > > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
> > directly
> > > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
> > Lucene.Net,
> > > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still
> get
> > > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I
> generally
> > > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> > > >
> > > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant
> > offer
> > > > for development help. See below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Lucere team,
> > > >
> > > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> > > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
> > project in
> > > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly
> > on
> > > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on),
> > but
> > > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common
> > approach
> > > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and
> > so
> > > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think
> > that we
> > > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project
> like
> > > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> > > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to
> > build
> > > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
> > course.
> > > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
> everything
> > in
> > > > best way.
> > > >
> > > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
> > some
> > > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> > > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in
> > designing
> > > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can
> build
> > in
> > > > that way.
> > > >
> > > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted
> to
> > > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
> > see if
> > > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have
> > 12
> > > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they
> > do, and
> > > > how will we coordinate their work?
> > > >
> > > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
> > really
> > > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> > > >
> > > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of
> the
> > > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some
> > new
> > > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> > > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group
> > to do
> > > > that work?
> > > >
> > > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> > automated
> > > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work
> to
> > > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could
> focus
> > on
> > > > that?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application
> > that
> > > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > > > remoteing model that was removed)?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> > maintainable
> > > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Troy
> > > >
> >
>
RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Christopher Currens <cu...@gmail.com>.
The entire asp.net codebase is released under the apache license, so I
wouldn't be surprised if MS would donate that under apache as well if we
asked.
On Oct 1, 2012 2:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (
> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft
> guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for
> that?
> The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo,
> although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would
> get my votes
> > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> > Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> > From: itamar@code972.com
> > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> > (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
> > Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
> > productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do a
> > pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
> > idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
> directly
> > > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork
> Lucene.Net,
> > > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
> > > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
> > > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> > >
> > > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant
> offer
> > > for development help. See below:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Lucere team,
> > >
> > > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> > > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
> project in
> > > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly
> on
> > > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on),
> but
> > > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common
> approach
> > > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and
> so
> > > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think
> that we
> > > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
> > > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> > > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to
> build
> > > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
> course.
> > > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything
> in
> > > best way.
> > >
> > > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
> some
> > > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> > > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in
> designing
> > > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build
> in
> > > that way.
> > >
> > > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
> > > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
> see if
> > > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have
> 12
> > > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they
> do, and
> > > how will we coordinate their work?
> > >
> > > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
> really
> > > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> > >
> > > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
> > > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some
> new
> > > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> > > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group
> to do
> > > that work?
> > >
> > > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> automated
> > > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
> > > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus
> on
> > > that?
> > >
> > > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application
> that
> > > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > > remoteing model that was removed)?
> > >
> > > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> maintainable
> > > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> > >
> > > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Troy
> > >
>
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Omri Suissa <om...@diffdoof.com>.
+1 for an ElasticSearch \ Solr port
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Kieran Logan <ki...@roleconnect.com> wrote:
> For selfish reasons I'd like to see the Azure Directory being improved,
> there has been a few requests on the Q&A
>
> http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538/view/
> Discussions#content for the project to be open sourced
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] [mailto:casperOne@caspershouse.com]
> Sent: 01 October 2012 22:56
> To: <de...@lucenenet.apache.org>
> Cc: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>
> +1 for an ElasticSearch like service (embed able and REST enabled) would
> get
> my vote.
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net
> (http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538)
> It
> would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy,
> I
> think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
> > The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them
> > imo, although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen
> > porting would get my votes
> >> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> >> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> >> From: itamar@code972.com
> >> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
> >>
> >> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> >> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) ,
> >> a Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms
> >> of productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev
> >> should do a pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or
> >> thinking of an idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
> >>> directly involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to
> >>> fork Lucene.Net, but since getting involved here that project has
> >>> died off. I still get occasional inquiries about the project via
> >>> Codeproject, and I generally point them to the Lucene.Net mailing
> lists.
> >>>
> >>> I just got an interesting email via that project, with an
> >>> significant offer for development help. See below:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dear Lucere team,
> >>>
> >>> I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> >>> Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
> >>> project in our objective technologies course. This course is
> >>> concentrated mainly on analysis and design of models (UMLs,
> >>> objective principles and so on), but also on producing very high
> >>> quality of code and using most common approach to development
> >>> nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so on). We
> >>> are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
> >>> could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project
> >>> like this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of
> >>> very ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough
> to build something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
> course.
> >>> They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
> >>> everything in best way.
> >>>
> >>> As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
> >>> some bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in
> >>> highly objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free
> >>> rein in designing such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some
> >>> features we can build in that way.
> >>>
> >>> Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted
> >>> to contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> >>> Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication AGH
> >>> Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
> >>> see if we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do
> >>> suddenly have 12 new developers that want to work on the project...
> >>> What should they do, and how will we coordinate their work?
> >>>
> >>> His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
> >>> really fall under the fold of "create and design".
> >>>
> >>> We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of
> >>> the existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating
> >>> some new .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to
> >>> the baseline functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could
> >>> be the group to do that work?
> >>>
> >>> We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
> >>> automated porting process, and how that would require significant
> >>> coding work to bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps
> >>> they could focus on that?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search
> >>> application that was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project,
> >>> that is unique to Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just
> >>> bringing back the .NET remoteing model that was removed)?
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
> >>> maintainable (have you seen that code? eek)...
> >>>
> >>> There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Troy
> >
>
>
>
RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Kieran Logan <ki...@roleconnect.com>.
For selfish reasons I'd like to see the Azure Directory being improved,
there has been a few requests on the Q&A
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538/view/
Discussions#content for the project to be open sourced
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] [mailto:casperOne@caspershouse.com]
Sent: 01 October 2012 22:56
To: <de...@lucenenet.apache.org>
Cc: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
+1 for an ElasticSearch like service (embed able and REST enabled) would get
my vote.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net
(http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538) It
would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy, I
think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
> The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them
> imo, although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen
> porting would get my votes
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> From: itamar@code972.com
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
>> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) ,
>> a Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms
>> of productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev
>> should do a pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or
>> thinking of an idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting
>>> directly involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to
>>> fork Lucene.Net, but since getting involved here that project has
>>> died off. I still get occasional inquiries about the project via
>>> Codeproject, and I generally point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
>>>
>>> I just got an interesting email via that project, with an
>>> significant offer for development help. See below:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Lucere team,
>>>
>>> I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
>>> Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have
>>> project in our objective technologies course. This course is
>>> concentrated mainly on analysis and design of models (UMLs,
>>> objective principles and so on), but also on producing very high
>>> quality of code and using most common approach to development
>>> nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so on). We
>>> are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
>>> could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project
>>> like this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of
>>> very ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough
to build something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this
course.
>>> They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design
>>> everything in best way.
>>>
>>> As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing
>>> some bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in
>>> highly objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free
>>> rein in designing such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some
>>> features we can build in that way.
>>>
>>> Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted
>>> to contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bartlomiej Szczepanik
>>> Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication AGH
>>> Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and
>>> see if we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do
>>> suddenly have 12 new developers that want to work on the project...
>>> What should they do, and how will we coordinate their work?
>>>
>>> His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't
>>> really fall under the fold of "create and design".
>>>
>>> We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of
>>> the existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating
>>> some new .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to
>>> the baseline functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could
>>> be the group to do that work?
>>>
>>> We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an
>>> automated porting process, and how that would require significant
>>> coding work to bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps
>>> they could focus on that?
>>>
>>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search
>>> application that was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project,
>>> that is unique to Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just
>>> bringing back the .NET remoteing model that was removed)?
>>>
>>> Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more
>>> maintainable (have you seen that code? eek)...
>>>
>>> There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Troy
>
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <ca...@caspershouse.com>.
+1 for an ElasticSearch like service (embed able and REST enabled) would get my vote.
On Oct 1, 2012, at 5:34 PM, "Prescott Nasser" <ge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538) It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
> The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo, although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would get my votes
>> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
>> From: itamar@code972.com
>> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>>
>> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
>> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
>> Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
>> productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do a
>> pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
>> idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting directly
>>> involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork Lucene.Net,
>>> but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
>>> occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
>>> point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
>>>
>>> I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant offer
>>> for development help. See below:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Lucere team,
>>>
>>> I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
>>> Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have project in
>>> our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly on
>>> analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), but
>>> also on producing very high quality of code and using most common approach
>>> to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so
>>> on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
>>> could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
>>> this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
>>> ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to build
>>> something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this course.
>>> They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything in
>>> best way.
>>>
>>> As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing some
>>> bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
>>> objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in designing
>>> such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build in
>>> that way.
>>>
>>> Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
>>> contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bartlomiej Szczepanik
>>> Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
>>> AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and see if
>>> we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have 12
>>> new developers that want to work on the project... What should they do, and
>>> how will we coordinate their work?
>>>
>>> His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't really
>>> fall under the fold of "create and design".
>>>
>>> We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
>>> existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some new
>>> .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
>>> functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group to do
>>> that work?
>>>
>>> We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an automated
>>> porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
>>> bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus on
>>> that?
>>>
>>> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
>>> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
>>> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
>>> remoteing model that was removed)?
>>>
>>> Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more maintainable
>>> (have you seen that code? eek)...
>>>
>>> There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Troy
>
RE: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
There is already an Azure directory for Lucene.Net (http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Azure-Library-for-83562538) It would be fantastic to get that into contrib, but being by a microsoft guy, I think they stick to MS-LPL. Maybe we could reach out to them for that?
The team is large, I think Luke.Net is probably too small for them imo, although it would be nice. ElasticSearch or work on sharpen porting would get my votes
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0200
> Subject: Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
> From: itamar@code972.com
> To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
>
> My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
> (I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
> Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
> productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do a
> pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
> idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting directly
> > involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork Lucene.Net,
> > but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
> > occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
> > point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
> >
> > I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant offer
> > for development help. See below:
> >
> >
> > Dear Lucere team,
> >
> > I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> > Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have project in
> > our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly on
> > analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), but
> > also on producing very high quality of code and using most common approach
> > to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so
> > on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
> > could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
> > this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> > ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to build
> > something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this course.
> > They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything in
> > best way.
> >
> > As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing some
> > bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> > objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in designing
> > such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build in
> > that way.
> >
> > Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
> > contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> > Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> > AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and see if
> > we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have 12
> > new developers that want to work on the project... What should they do, and
> > how will we coordinate their work?
> >
> > His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't really
> > fall under the fold of "create and design".
> >
> > We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
> > existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some new
> > .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> > functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group to do
> > that work?
> >
> > We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an automated
> > porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
> > bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus on
> > that?
> >
> > Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
> > was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> > Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> > remoteing model that was removed)?
> >
> > Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more maintainable
> > (have you seen that code? eek)...
> >
> > There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
Re: Offer of help vis Lucere project
Posted by Itamar Syn-Hershko <it...@code972.com>.
My thoughts exactly - either a search server on top of Lucene.NET
(I'd recommend looking at ElasticSearch as a role-model, not SOLR) , a
Java porting aid (a handy R# plugin would worth tons more in terms of
productivity than a tool that just translates code, as a dev should do a
pass on the code anyway) , Luke.NET (WPF or Web-ish), or thinking of an
idea to a new missing contrib (Azure directory?)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> You may recall a project I started called Lucere before getting directly
> involved with Lucene.Net. At that time I was planning to fork Lucene.Net,
> but since getting involved here that project has died off. I still get
> occasional inquiries about the project via Codeproject, and I generally
> point them to the Lucene.Net mailing lists.
>
> I just got an interesting email via that project, with an significant offer
> for development help. See below:
>
>
> Dear Lucere team,
>
> I am writing on behalf 12 students of AGH University of Science and
> Technology in Cracow, Poland. In starting fall semester we have project in
> our objective technologies course. This course is concentrated mainly on
> analysis and design of models (UMLs, objective principles and so on), but
> also on producing very high quality of code and using most common approach
> to development nowadays (design patterns, ORMs, unit testing, IoC and so
> on). We are looking for open source project to contribute. We think that we
> could desing and develop one or two specific parts of open project like
> this as a part of our university project. Our team is full of very
> ambitious and very skilled people. Twelve people should be enough to build
> something great. Moreover we have support of our PhDs leading this course.
> They will validate all our ideas and will help us to design everything in
> best way.
>
> As I said before we want to create rather entire module than fixing some
> bugs. Due to our course objectives we are interested only in highly
> objective modules. It would be great if you allow us free rein in designing
> such module. Maybe you have in your roadmap some features we can build in
> that way.
>
> Your project seems very interesting for us and we would be delighted to
> contribute. We are waiting eagerly for your response.
>
> Best regards,
> Bartlomiej Szczepanik
> Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunication
> AGH Univerity of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland
>
>
> ---
>
> If this is interesting to us, I will coordinate with Bartlomeij and see if
> we can bring these developers into Lucene.Net. If we do suddenly have 12
> new developers that want to work on the project... What should they do, and
> how will we coordinate their work?
>
> His stated goals are to create not to bug fix... and porting doesn't really
> fall under the fold of "create and design".
>
> We have always tossed around the idea of creating a layer on top of the
> existing API that would be more .NET idiomatic, or incorporating some new
> .NET specific features into the library *in addition* to the baseline
> functionality that we port directly. Perhaps this could be the group to do
> that work?
>
> We've also talked about trying to get some improvement with an automated
> porting process, and how that would require significant coding work to
> bring a project like Sharpen up to our needs. Perhaps they could focus on
> that?
>
> Maybe they could work on the distributed/federated search application that
> was brought up a while back? a SOLR-like project, that is unique to
> Lucene.Net (as opposed to porting SOLR or just bringing back the .NET
> remoteing model that was removed)?
>
> Perhaps they could design a new tool like Luke, that is more maintainable
> (have you seen that code? eek)...
>
> There are a lot of options here. Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>