Perhaps George is best answering this, but are there any benefits in methods of Lucene.Net being capitalised? Or even with the namespace being different to Java Lucene? I ask because parity with Java is laudable and has obvious benefits, but by are these tweaks adding an unnecessary burden to the process?
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 18:29 -0700, Shaw, James wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
