That is exactly what I would suggest. Sharpen looks like a great tool, since you can customize it's behaviour. In fact, the only downside is that you have to customize it's behaviour which requires a lot of upfront work.
Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
