We already have a release for .NET 2.0 (Lucene.Net 2.9.2). So, jumping to 4.0 shouldn't be a problem for Lucene,Net community. DIGY
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good to me. I have done this previously in a local branch and > noticed massive performance improvements. Removing all the casting in > the library makes for dramatic speedups. > > As a side note: Chris Currens is in the process of benchmarking > Lucene.Net running under .NET 4.0 vs 3.5 vs 2.0... This benchmarking > is to prove what we found in our production deployments... Compiling > and deploying as a .NET 4.0 assembly results in major improvements in > both speed and correct memory handling (memory leaks magically > disappear). We want to prove this with benchmarks before publishing a > definitive statement about this however. > > If this is the case, there might be a very compelling reason to move > forward to 4.0 runtime for Lucene.Net. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:23 PM, digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > After this directory layout changes; what about replacing ArrayLists, > > Hashtables etc, with appropriate Generics? This would bring us very > close > > to lucene 3.0.3 (and not hard to do with the help of VS). > > > > DIGY > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Sounds good. I'll make a tag prior to starting the directory changes, > >> but I'll commit changes to trunk. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Troy > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:55 AM, digy digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > +1. No pending commits. > >> > A copy of the current trunk somewhere else(tag, branches etc.) would > be > >> good > >> > too. > >> > > >> > DIGY. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Looks like we have a 'lazy consensus', in that, no one has raised any > >> >> significant objections, a few minor modifications have been suggested > >> >> (which sound totally reasonable), and those who did vote were > >> >> positive. > >> >> > >> >> Barring any objections, this vote passes. > >> >> > >> >> Since DIGY and Scott seem to have gotten the bulk of the work on > 2.9.4 > >> >> finished, I think now is a good time to start the directory layout > >> >> changes, and it won't be too intrusive to any active commits. I'll > >> >> start on that this week. > >> >> > >> >> If you have any pending commits that would be totally screwed up by > >> >> this directory change, please finalize those as soon as possible! > >> >> Otherwise I'll be moving things around and your patches/commits might > >> >> not be able to find the appropriate files. > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Troy > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Prescott Nasser < > >> geobmx...@hotmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Any more thoughts on the directory structure? > >> >> > > >> >> > Quick Recap: > >> >> > > >> >> > We have Troy's original proposal here: > >> >> > >> > http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/directory-structure-example/ > >> >> > > >> >> > bin/ > >> >> > build/ (various solution and project files) > >> >> > vs2008/ > >> >> > vs2010/ > >> >> > doc/ > >> >> > lib/ - third party libraries to make it easy to pull down the > source > >> and > >> >> go > >> >> > src/ > >> >> > contrib/ > >> >> > core/ > >> >> > demo/ > >> >> > test/ > >> >> > contrib/ > >> >> > core/ > >> >> > demo/ > >> >> > > >> >> > From here, I further suggested cleaning up the contrib folder - > >> because > >> >> we have extra folders: > >> >> > > >> >> > src/contrib/contrib.net/contrib.net/ -> src/contrib/contrib.net/ > >> >> > src/contrib/snowball/snowball.net/ -> src/contrib/Snowball.net/ > >> >> > > >> >> > Digy further suggested dropping the .net in all those folders > above, > >> and > >> >> finding a better name for contrib.net. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> >> >> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:41:17 +0200 > >> >> >> From: digyd...@gmail.com > >> >> >> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New Directory Layout for Project > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Well, not really "core". > >> >> >> Codes under Analyzer(by DIGY) can be moved to > /src/contrib/analyzers > >> >> (but > >> >> >> they are not ports from java). > >> >> >> The others(by M.GARSKI) are extensions to the core(something like > >> >> >> Lucene.Net.Core.Extensions) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> DIGY > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Troy Howard wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yeah -- I also changed the Contrib.Net project folder name to > >> >> >> > ~/src/contrib/core ... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > IMO we should just roll these into the main library if they are > >> solid, > >> >> >> > tested and useful.. This is keeping in line with our new > philosophy > >> >> >> > about allowing .NET specific changes, even if it means diverging > >> from > >> >> >> > Java Lucene to do it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> >> > Troy > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Prescott Nasser > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Actually what IS contrib.net? It looks like it replaces > certain > >> >> files in > >> >> >> > Lucene.Net core - are they files better suited to .net? What are > >> they? > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > If they are plugins / additional contributions like snowball, > etc > >> - > >> >> why > >> >> >> > not just break it out and include the appropriate stuff in > contrib? > >> Do > >> >> we > >> >> >> > need to specify that they are not avaliable in the java version? > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > ---------------------------------------- > >> >> >> > >> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:18:22 +0200 > >> >> >> > >> From: digyd...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > >> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > >> >> >> > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New Directory Layout for > >> Project > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> 0 > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> ".Net"s seem to be redundant under /src/contrib/ . It could > be > >> >> something > >> >> >> > >> like > >> >> >> > >> Analyzers > >> >> >> > >> Highlighter > >> >> >> > >> Similarity > >> >> >> > >> ... > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> (Maybe, we should find a different name for contrib.net. It > >> >> contains > >> >> >> > >> "contributions specific to Lucene.Net which are not available > in > >> >> >> > >> Lucene.java) > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> DIGY > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote: > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > Probably just a miss - but under the src/contrib folder you > >> also > >> >> have > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > >> > number of tests in there... > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > Also, is it necessary to have all the sub folders? For the > >> most > >> >> part > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > >> > stuff in contrib.net is contrib.net - why the secondary > >> folder? > >> >> >> > Unless > >> >> >> > >> > that is a requirement of NUnit to have the structure that > way > >> it > >> >> seems > >> >> >> > a bit > >> >> >> > >> > cluttered. > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > I would think something like > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > src/contrib/contrib.net/ > >> >> >> > >> > src/contrib/Snowball.net/ > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > instead of > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > src/contrib/contrib.net/contrib.net/ > >> >> >> > >> > src/contrib/snowball/snowball.net/ > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > I don't know how people feel about that > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > ~P > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > ---------------------------------------- > >> >> >> > >> > > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:31:34 -0500 > >> >> >> > >> > > From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net > >> >> >> > >> > > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > >> >> >> > >> > > CC: thowar...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > >> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] [VOTE] New Directory Layout for > >> >> Project > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > +1 > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > just a question though. for cmd/bat//sh files for letting > >> >> people > >> >> >> > >> > executing > >> >> >> > >> > > the build or just executing other tools from the command > >> line, > >> >> would > >> >> >> > >> > those > >> >> >> > >> > > have a place in /bin or somewhere els? This is that > someone > >> can > >> >> just > >> >> >> > >> > export > >> >> >> > >> > > PATH = / SET PATH= to that one folder and then be able to > >> >> execute > >> >> >> > those > >> >> >> > >> > > commands from one location? > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Troy Howard wrote: > >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > All, > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > We'd like to update the project directory > >> structure/layout. > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > See below for a proposed layout. I've also uploaded an > >> >> example > >> >> >> > which > >> >> >> > >> > > > you can navigate at: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://people.apache.org/~thoward/Lucene.Net/directory-structure-example > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > NOTE: This will not build!! I just put things in the > >> >> appropriate > >> >> >> > >> > > > places without updating the solution/project files to > show > >> >> how we > >> >> >> > >> > > > might lay things out. Also, I included NUnit as an > example > >> of > >> >> a > >> >> >> > >> > > > third-party dependency that we might include in the > >> >> repository > >> >> >> > under > >> >> >> > >> > > > 'lib'. We of course will *not* be distributing NUnit in > >> this > >> >> >> > manner, > >> >> >> > >> > > > due to licensing restrictions. > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Ok, disclaimer over... > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Please vote on this layout, or suggest a modification > or > >> >> >> > alternative > >> >> >> > >> > > > layout. > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Voting will be open for 72 hours. > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > [ ] +1 Use this directory structure exactly as > described, > >> or > >> >> with > >> >> >> > a > >> >> >> > >> > > > minor modification > >> >> >> > >> > > > [ ] 0 Use a different structure (described in response) > >> >> >> > >> > > > [ ] -1 Do not change the directory structure at all > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Text description of directory schema: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Build Files: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \build > >> >> >> > >> > > > \build\VS2008 > >> >> >> > >> > > > \build\VS2010 > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Source Projects: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\contrib > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\core > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\demo > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\contrib\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\core\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \src\demo\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Test Projects: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\contrib > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\core > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\demo > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\contrib\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\core\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \test\demo\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Product Documentation: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\contrib > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\core > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\demo > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\contrib\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\core\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \doc\demo\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Third-Party Dependencies: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \lib > >> >> >> > >> > > > \lib\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \lib\\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \lib\\\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > Binary Builds: > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\contrib > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\core > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\demo > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\contrib\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\core\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > \bin\demo\ > >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
