+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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >
