I've posted the following comment in the blog but I think it's worth mentioning our company's use case of Lucene and our appreciation of API parity with Java Lucene:
Hi, all, Just want to say that having parity with the Java API's does have its value, at least to our company. Our company is developing a portable search engine on top of Lucene that will work on both Java and .NET platforms. It's basically a wrapper around Lucene written in constrained Java that will be translated automatically by a Java to C# translator we've developed. If the Java and .NET versions of the API's differ too much then we will have to have an abstraction layer on top of the platform specific Lucene. The Java and .NET equivalence is very important to us and is the main reason we picked Lucene over other search engines for the the company-wide shared search component that's to be embedded in both our desktop and web applications, and while I know you can still keep functional parity with a different .NET API's (same index structure, same search results given the same query, etc), having the same API's as Java definitely makes writing our wrapper component a lot easier. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Design of the Lucene framework: will it be .NET compliant? Comments are quite comprehensive ( especially last one from Doug Cutting - Lucene Java creator ) . Yes, Lucene.Net is port using Java=>C# code tool with some tweaking and unless the number of active contributors will increase from one to many , it will be so in foreseeable future. I am quite happy to have a possibility to use it in .Net applications. Michael Mitiaguin Michael Mitiaguin On 3/7/07, Torsten Rendelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Can someone please answer/clarify about the goals > of the .NET lucene port? > See this weblog post at: > http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=53bbe636-8976-4177 > -bed7-49a43f755036 > > Please also note the comments there. > > Torsten Rendelmann > > >
