As a somewhat related issue with .NET 4.0, are there plans to move to asynchronous calls at any point for what are now blocking I/O operations?
Task<T> in 4.0 has made removing blocking I/O operations in C#/.NET 4.0 fairly simple (although not as simple as C# 4.5 with async/await and core framework changes to support Task<T>). I ask because I'm thinking the throughput and/or performance of of Lucene.NET would be increased dramatically (by reducing waits on file-based I/O operations) but it would be a large architectural change. Perhaps it's something to keep in mind for the future. - Nicholas Paldino On Jan 1, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "Christopher Currens" <[email protected]> wrote: > There are issues that need to be discussed about the 4.0 port and being > able to continue support of .NET 3.5. I can only think of one example > right now, but I've looked through most of the code for lucene 4.0, and > there's a *very* heavy use of variance that would be difficult to maintain > outside of .NET 4.x. If you want a good example of this, check out the > lucene.util.ast package and its usages. This isn't the only area that uses > both contravariance and covariance, but it's the only one I could think of > off of the top of my head. > > I started porting parts of it, just to see what could be done (nothing > significant). It's been a month or so since I worked on it, so my memory > of what I found is foggy. The variance was the biggest thing I saw that > was an issue, but I think there were a few other things. I'd have to look > at it again to see. > > > Thanks, > Christopher > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The general direction should be to put most of the efforts on a v4 port >> (4.1 probably...) and to start finding pieces in the codebase we can easily >> isolate and .NET-ify. Mostly readers, writers, structures and conversions. >> >> Re git on apache - I believe you should ask infra. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Christopher Currens < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Don't think I've forgotten about this. While I have no idea how git >> under >>> Apache looks like, I have a lot of comments on Lucene 3.6 (and 4.0) that >> I >>> need to discuss on this mailing list directly relating to the porting >> work >>> and the future direction of lucene.net. I've had an email in my drafts >>> folder for about 3 weeks now but this time of year has been so busy I >>> haven't had a chance to finish it. Soon, though, I hope. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Christopher >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Prescott Nasser <[email protected] >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Guys - I've been quietly working in the background on >> administrative >>>> stuff for a while. I really only have two things on my to-do list - - >>> What >>>> does git under apache look like? I can't remember who asked this, but I >>>> know I owe digging up the answer- Lucene 3.6 - planning, moving >> forward ( >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/compare/5261b571...e4402c22c). >> Do >>>> we just want to start picking things off and committing them? Are there >>>> other refactoring issues we want to tackle with 3.6? We should make >> jira >>>> tickets and start tracking. Happy holidays everyone! ~Prescott >>
