Hi, You won't ever get full parity with java anyway. As soon as you have to deal with Streams etc. there's a gap. To make Lucene.NET fit into .NET you also have to convert getters/setters into properties. Since there are already a couple of little things necessary to be changed from java->.net anyway, I think we're also better off with naming conventions complying to .NET style guides. cheers, Erich
________________________________ Von: Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Di 2007-03-13 23:08 An: [email protected] Betreff: RE: Design of the Lucene framework: will it be .NET compliant? 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 > > > > > >
