Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think the technology is there - no generic porting tool will be 100%, it will always require pre/post processing. Sharpen is a pretty good generic conversion tool. I agree in that I think we need to focus on a process utilizing a tool such as sharpen and developing the pre/post processing clean up scripts that are specific to Lucene. ~Prescott
> Subject: RE: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:29:21 -0500 > From: stema...@brain-bank.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > Folks, > > I will freely admit that I'm seizing the opportunity to raise an old > point - but that problem would be non-existent if this was a project > that implemented a methodology as opposed to being a continuous port > effort. I will even go as far as suggesting that this would broaden (and > ease) the recruitment of committers. It almost feels like the goal is > not simply to port Lucene.java to Lucene.net but to also develop a > technology that ports things automatically. I would almost suggest that > this in itself could be an ASF TLP. It still feels to me that everyone > is trying to cut the head off a two-headed dragon with a single sword > and a single motion. > > Once search algorithms was discovered and implemented - it should be up > to the language-specific programmers to implement these and optimize > these as they see fit. Both languages have their strengths and their own > frameworks - at the moment the java side has great benefits which in > turn greatly hinder the success of the .net side. > > In a nutshell, while some cultures seem to be better at courtship - the > fact that I don't speak some of these languages shouldn't make me less > good at it. > > I think that a project for a Java->NET and NET->Java would be a great > idea. Again, it would allow a lot of people that are doing the same for > hundreds of other projects to simply pool their efforts. > > Just my Canadian 2 cents (which is almost at par with the American cents > these days) > > > Karell Ste-Marie > C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lombard, Scott [mailto:slomb...@kingindustries.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:17 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > > Marco, > > My feeling would be to create strong automated conversion tools to allow > java Lucene to be ported in to .NET in as few steps and as possible. > The .net style goal is a noble one, but will require a significant more > commitment to the project in the future. As each new version of java > Lucene will have to be integrated by hand into the .net version. > > As the conversion tools get more advanced and robust .net style code may > be implemented as part of the automated conversion process. > > > Scott
