Just one comment about providing better support for async all around: This is something you have to build into the design; the synchronous invocations just wait on the async versions.
The important thing is to get the async design and implementation right and then layer the sync version on top. - Nick On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:30 AM, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <[email protected]> wrote: > Tremendously. The Codecs API is the biggest change, and there are many > more, including namespace changes. > > I gave it some thought and I believe nuking master and starting fresh is > the best way to go. First step would be to actually do a line-by-line port > except for getters/setters and data structures, and then we can specialize > classes to use more advanced .NET features. I believe a custom Directory > implementation should be created in its own class, not instead of the > line-by-line port. > > Starting fresh would help in refactoring bits of code as we do, and is much > quicker than comparing diffs when there's a lot of changes to account for. > We can copy-paste or reuse code from 3.0 when handling code that we know > hasn't changed too much. > > I'd also push for revamping the test suite - making it use xunit and using > helper methods so we can copy-paste tests from Java and minimize the amount > of changes required. We don't really care about code quality there, we just > need the tests to pass. > > After having a fully working port, we can dive in and replace inner parts > with .NET specific implementations, like better async support all around. > > Thoughts? > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Nicholas Paldino < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> How much has it changed? If its significant I'd suggest starting clean >> and taking advantage of .net specific features: >> >> Task<T> and async I/O on Directory >> Deferred execution with yield return/break with IEnumerable<T> >> Better support for generics >> >> The first item is really the big win; scalability can be improved by not >> having to block threads on I/O operations. >> >> - Nick >> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:58 PM, "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I've been working with the 4.x Java code base for a while - the API has >>> significantly changed from 3.0 so the question is do we start clean or >>> replace parts? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Christopher Currens < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes. I think that's good. We need to come up with a plan, though, and >>>> start distributing work. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nope, lets start dev'ing >>>>> >>>>> Lucene 4.2 work in master, 3.x in dedicated branches? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Prescott Nasser < >> [email protected] >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think we agreed pull requests got a jira ticket with the details and >>>>>> then we reviewed it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also lucene 3.6 would support 3.5 still, 4.0 would go 4.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Any issues? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: mherndon michael >>>>>> Sent: 2/20/2013 5:26 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 >>>>>> >>>>>> Did we ever agree on how to handle pull requests on github? There are >>>> at >>>>>> currently least four pull requests on github. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also what is the official git repo now for Lucene.Net ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Are we moving forward on 4.0 and if so how do we want to proceed with >>>>> that? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -M >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < >>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose all that is left now is to agree on a plan for moving >>>>> forward? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Prescott Nasser < >>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Repo is writable!> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 >>>>>>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:50:03 -0800 >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey itamar - I've been emailing private, its read only until we >>>>>> approve >>>>>>>> it. Chris and I thought it looked good and I was waiting a bit to >>>>> hear >>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ill put in to have them flip it to writable today. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>> From: Itamar Syn-Hershko >>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/17/2013 3:11 AM >>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prescott, any updates on this? I can see they opened a repo for >>>> us, >>>>>> but >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> sure whats the status on this? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Prescott Nasser < >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5797. I added >>>>> details >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>> the hook email. I'll keep you guy posted. I'm been MIA - >>>> closing >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> yearly >>>>>>>>>> books for work, I should be through it in another week and then >>>>>> back >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> track and I'll join the conversation on the road map >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:24:58 +0100 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-24, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Troy Howard < >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The main thing is ensuring that we consider the ASF git >>>> repo >>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> Lucene.Net >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be the primary source of truth (once we move over to >>>> it) >>>>>> Any >>>>>>>> PRs >>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Github mirror will need to be merged back into the ASF git >>>>>> repo. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We don't have to work against github. Actually, perhaps we >>>>>> better >>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>>>>> against an ASF's git repo and have it auto-mirrored to >>>>> github. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>> git >>>>>>>>>>>> works, all you have to do to merge a PR is add the other >>>> repo >>>>>> as >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> remote, >>>>>>>>>>>> fetch and merge. Github should detect that as closing the >>>> PR >>>>> - >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> probably verify that with them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Either way, I would recommend setting up a hook to email >>>> this >>>>>>> list >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> notifications about incoming PRs, just so everyone is >>>>> notified. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of Stefan's worries are all covered by good >>>>> guidelines >>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> work with PRs / github tools - voting etc. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Probably yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, how do we proceed? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Basically we ask the ASF's INFRA team (via JIRA) to create a >>>>>>> writable >>>>>>>>>>> git repo for us. It would probably be best if Prescott as >>>>>> chairman >>>>>>>>>>> could drive this. At one point in time projects moving to >>>> git >>>>>> had >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> name a team member who'd be willing to help with the >>>> migration. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stefan >>
