+1 for an ElasticSearch \ Solr port On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Kieran Logan <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 October 2012 22:56 > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > 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" <[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 > > > > >
