I think it took be 5 "deletes" of this e-mail and complete rewrites to try to say this in the best way possible:
First off, Sharpen is a java tool (from the db4o SVN I found) - using sharpen to port lucene to .net means that people now have to install a jvm on their computers in order to contribute. While this may seem like it makes perfect sense in fact it is this type of requirements that scares pure .net developers away. You cannot ask someone to install a bunch of tools "outside" of their comfort zone in order to create a tool that works in their world. Furthermore, it's also saying that now - not only do contributors need to know java and have a jvm, but then they also need to know sharpen in order to make a c# product. Gentlemen, I would gladly contribute - I can assure you that I wouldn't be the best but I would be happy to lend a hand - but speaking strictly for myself I don't see myself learning 2-3 new pieces of technologies when I feel that I should just be a good c# programmer to help out. Would it not make more sense, given the fact that we want to reduce work and make a quality product that we become more selective about *what* goes through Sharpen and what can be hand-crafted? IE: Do we really need to port the Java methods of writing to files and handling Threading? What about WCF? Karell Ste-Marie C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:46 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org 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
