Yes. I'm in the process of writing that proposal at this time. It will include language in the project description that express our intent to develop a C#/.NET idiomatic version of the library.
Please find the in-progress draft version at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Lucene.Net%20Proposal Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Ben Martz <benma...@gmail.com> wrote: > So perhaps the proposal should allow for a combination of a mostly > automated baseline line-by-line port and the explicit provision that > embraces drop-in (API compliant) .NET-specific replacements for specific > classes? > > - Ben > > ------------------------------ > > Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com> > December 30, 2010 12:39 PM > > It's my opinion that we can basically commoditize an automated port > which will fulfill the needs of the community, and allow the project > to, at minimum, continue to release, in a timely fashion, direct ports > of the Java Lucene releases... > > Meanwhile we can continue the efforts represented in Lucere, Lucille, > and Aimee.Net to create an alternative API for Lucene.Net which may or > may not include completely re-written code, depending on the > specifics. > > I think both concepts can co-exist in a single project and that this > will be the best way to move forward. If you followed the Lucere > project, you'll see that my approach with TDD and Contract Driven > Design was intended to facilitate just such an arrangement. > > Thanks, > Troy > >
