> but I guess the future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is becoming more .NET like
My intention while I was creating that branch was just to make 2.9.4 a little bit more .Net like(+ maybe some performance). I used many codes from 3.0.3 Java. So it is somewhere between 2.9.4 & 3.0.3 But I didn't think it as a separate branch to evolve on its own path. It is(or I think it is) the final version of 2.9 DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Currens [mailto:currens.ch...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:20 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g One of the benefits of moving forward with the conversion of the Java Lucene, is that they're using more recent versions of Java that support things like generics and enums, so the direct port is getting more and more like .NET, though not in all respects of course. I'm of the mind, though, that one of the larger annoyances, Iterables, should be converted to Enumerables in the direct port. It makes it a pain to use it in .NET without it inheriting from IEnumerable, since it can't be used in a foreach loop or with linq. Also, since the direct port isn't perfect anyway, it seems a port of the IDEA of iterating would be more in the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish, since the code would pretty much be the same, just with different method names. I sort of got off topic there for a second, but I guess the future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is becoming more .NET like. Obviously, while java is starting to use similar constructs that we have in .NET, it will never be perfect. Admittedly, I haven't looked at 2.9.4g in a little while, so I'm not sure how much it now differs from 3.x, since there's a relatively large change there already. Thanks, Christopher On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > That's a great question - I know a lot of people like the generics, and I > don't really want it to disappear. I'd like to keep it in parity with the > trunk. But I know we also have a goal of making Lucene.Net more .Net like > (further than 2.9.4g), and I don't know how that fits in. We are a pretty > small community and I know everyone has some pretty busy schedules so it > takes us considerable time to make big progress. Trying to keep three > different code bases probably isn't the right way to go. > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:02:03 +1100 > > From: mitiag...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > > > I was browsing "Roadmap" emails from November in Lucene developer list. > It > > remains unclear in what state Lucene 3 porting is , but my question more > > about 2.9.4g . > > Is it kind of experimental dead end variation of 2.9.4 with generics ? Am > > I right in classifying it as more .Net like 2.9.4 which is unrelated to > > roadmap Lucene 3 porting effort. ----- Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4708 - Release Date: 12/28/11
