Sorry about the ambiguity in my previous post. In reference to this comment: "the asm library was used to create java classes out of the bytecode. They probably did it that way because the generated types needed to be subclassed from the Expression type. We could use Reflection.Emit instead" - if possible, if we're generating dynamic types or methods at runtime, we should try to use *System.Linq.Expressions* instead of Reflection.Emit to do that. It gives you compile-time safety, whereas Reflection.Emit has no compile-time safety.
Paul Irwin Lead Software Engineer feature[23] Email: [email protected] Cell: 863-698-9294 On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> wrote: > By Expressions we mean Lucene Expressions, see > > https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/tree/trunk/lucene/expressions/src/java/org/apache/lucene/expressions > > Its based on Antlr, but Hakeems says they are doing some additional funky > stuff. > > What were you suggesting? > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Paul Irwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > As of .NET 4, it is preferable to use Expressions over Reflection.Emit > due > > to compile-time safety that helps prevent run-time errors (like crashing > > the CLR, which I've totally done with Reflection.Emit before), since .NET > > 4+ includes nearly-complete Expression support that can be used to build > > just about any function. I'd definitely prefer Expressions to > > Reflection.Emit. Or am I misunderstanding something? (Sorry, haven't been > > able to dive into the code lately, but trying to stay on top of the > > emails.) > > > > > > Paul Irwin > > Lead Software Engineer > > feature[23] > > > > Email: [email protected] > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > As long as the tests are green and implementation makes sense, I'm good > > > with that. At least for this first phase. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Hakeem Mohammed <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > They have used the classwriter and Genadaptor to generate types from > > > > bytecode. So the design is string expressions are tokenized, > bytecodes > > > were > > > > genned from the tokenized byte arrays and then the asm library was > used > > > to > > > > create java classes out of the bytecode. They probably did it that > way > > > > because the generated types needed to be subclassed from the > Expression > > > > type. We could use Reflection.Emit instead. But do let me know if you > > > have > > > > any other ideas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is an overkill. What did they use asm for? All you need to port > > > > > Expressions is Antlr really > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Hakeem Mohammed < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes the Java impl is using Antlr already, but they also used the > > asm > > > > > > library. That is where I'm debating whether to use Expression > trees > > > or > > > > go > > > > > > for Roslyn. The latter looks like a bit of overkill though > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the tokenizer implementations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Paul Irwin < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, I thought there was some place they were using another > > parser > > > > > > > > generator, but in the case of Antlr grammar already there, > have > > > at > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin > > > > > > > > Lead Software Engineer > > > > > > > > feature[23] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They are using Antlr for generating the Java bits there > > > anyway.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Paul Irwin < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd caution against reinventing the wheel on the parsing > > > right > > > > > now. > > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > be a faster path to just convert the generated java > parsers > > > > into > > > > > C# > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > an automated tool, as I did on my earlier Lucene 4.3 > > porting > > > > so I > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > attest to it. I was able to validate that they parsed > > > correctly > > > > > and > > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > used that ported code in a production app. Rewriting a > > parser > > > > may > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > the best use of time right now -- although I can > certainly > > > see > > > > > the > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > doing so later on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can use my little utility to convert the syntax of > > entire > > > > > files > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > once: https://github.com/paulirwin/javatocsharp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul Irwin > > > > > > > > > > Lead Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > feature[23] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Email: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > Cell: 863-698-9294 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Hakeem Mohammed < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Itamar and Laimonas. I appreciate the details > and > > > glad > > > > > to > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > . I > > > > > > > > > > > got started on Expressions and half way there. I'm > using > > > > Antlr > > > > > > 4.3 > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > parsing. Please let me know if that is what y'all were > > > > planning > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. I'll get to the index tests in core after that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hakeem, welcome on board! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laimonas's response is spot on, let us know if you > have > > > any > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I personally don't have any preference - once we get > > to 0 > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > failures > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > the core we will concentrate on finishing porting the > > > rest > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > sub-projects (Analysis.Common, Codecs, Suggest) with > > all > > > > > their > > > > > > > > tests, > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > then porting more sub-projects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I guess pick whatever you think you'd enjoy most, > > just > > > > > make > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > > > > > > us in the loop! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > > > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > > > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > > > > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Hakeem Mohammed < > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just joined this group and looking to offer some > > help > > > > in > > > > > > > > updating > > > > > > > > > > > > Lucene > > > > > > > > > > > > > to 4.8. I briefly skimmed thru but could not find > any > > > > items > > > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4.x work. I'd very much appreciate it if someone > can > > > let > > > > me > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > process for picking up items to work on. I spent a > > > couple > > > > > > weeks > > > > > > > > > > > updating > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated branch of Lucene, so trying to avoid that > > > > mistake > > > > > > > again > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
