Just to remind you, 3.5 came out in *2007* That is six years ago, and long enough to require 4.0 (came out in 2010, 3 years ago)
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]>wrote: > Honestly I think we should completely drop .NET 3.5 support. If we had more > time and more committers that may would have been a nice thing to have, but > given the current amount of resources that we have, we should really put > everything we've got into taking the largest strides we can towards a > proper release conforming to the latest Java Lucene. > > There's enough people using .NET 4 already anyway, and whoever doesn't will > either move soon or could use the .NET 3.5 version of Lucene 3.1. IMO the > penalty of supporting both or not using .NET4 features because of it > doesn't worth it. > > Having said that, I'm all for porting Lucene 4.1 to .NET with .NET specific > approaches, such as the async API, getters/setters syntax, lambdas etc. > This has to be done in a way that will still allow us to keep up to date > with the current code-base - meaning that would need to be quite a loud > process. > > I assume that would require a vote? > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Christopher Currens < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > I would like to add async/await, but I think adding a MMapDirectory, > first, > > is more important, and also something we could do now for the 3.x > versions > > of lucene. I know we've looked at it before (LUCENE-425, I think?), and > it > > was turned down because it had poor performance. I've tested a quick > port > > that I wrote and it performs the same under light load (8 threads) as it > > does under heavy load (250 threads), able to complete 6000 queries in 74 > > seconds. It performs the same as SimpleFSDirectory when it comes to > light > > load, but the SimpleFSDirectory performs horribly under heavy load, where > > the 250 threads querying 6000 times total took about 160 seconds. > > > > Another problem with supporting both .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0, is that it > > makes it more difficult in some respects to add things like methods that > > return Task<T>, since it's not present in 3.5. I think we need to > maintain > > two separate ports, a 3.x branch and a 4.x branch, although we don't > have a > > committer base that is active enough to do that. The 3.x branch could > > support .NET 3.5 and 4.0, where the 4.0 branch would only support .NET > 4.0. > > If you look at the differences between 3.0.3 and 3.1, there are huge > > performance optimizations that have been done, and to not give those to > > .NET 3.5 users seems to be a wasted opportunity, in my opinion. A lot of > > the difficulties that come with porting Lucene 4.0 into .NET 3.5 come in > > the later versions of the 3.x branch, probably around 3.5 or 3.6. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
