Not to mention Lupy.
Hasn't it been relatively well-established that trying to create a
performant search engine in a dynamic interpreted language is a show-
stopper? After several failed ports of lucene (I can add to this my
own, unreleased, attempt) I just don't see the point, except as an
academic exercise. This is true even with selective optimization in
c. I think that the core engine needs to be in c/java to achieve
feasibility--there's nothing stopping a cool dynamic language
wrapping the core (see Lucy).
good luck,
-Mike
On 28-Aug-07, at 5:33 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Why Lucille in light of PyLucene?
Erik
On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:55 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
Dear list,
I have recently begun a Python port of Lucene, named Lucille. It is
still very much a work in progress, but I hope to have a
feature-complete release compatible with Lucene 2.1 done in the
near future.
The project homepage is at: http://www.djc.id.au/lucille/
Contributions, feedback, and questions are most welcome!
P.S. A big thanks to the Lucene contributors for their hard work in
building a great piece of software.
--
Dan Callaghan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
