Lucene >= 1.9 requires Java 1.4 . You are right, the project you referring to : "Compliance with JDK 1.4 is largely implemented, but there are some holes (particularly in the Classpath API's<http://www.kaffe.org/%7Estuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14-classpath.html>). In particular,
- AWT and Swing are not presently functional. This is a low priority item for the project developers. - Security is another fairly large hole missing from the IKVM platform. This will be solved by relying on the sophisticated and powerful security model offered by the .NET platform. Still, enough functionality is in place that several large Java projects run successfully" It is still beta, you could try with Lucene 2.3 and tell us :) On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM, David Smiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you referring to the core Java libraries? GNU Classpath is an open > implementation of them. And more recently, the OpenJDK has released it > unencumbered. Here is the CLR based Java solution I was thinking of: > http://www.ikvm.net/index.html > > > > As I'm no Java programmer, I might be wrong, but I think the port is > needed > > because of the underlying class libraries (BCL). > > > > Cheers, > > Ali Shafai > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Smiley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 4:32 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for ports? > > > > Hi; I stumbled across Lucene.Net. I'm a Java developer, not a C#/.Net > dev. > > I thought there is an option or two for Java programs to run on > Microsoft's > > cool Common-Language-Runtime. If so, it seems to me quite odd that > > Lucene.Net would need to be ported to another programming language. > Part of > > the beauty of the CLR is that you don't need to do these sorts of > things. > > Because it's a common runtime and different languages can interoperate > > (within reason). Even though whatever Java implementation for the CLR > isn't > > a perfect replica of Sun's implementation and would necessitate some > changes > > to Lucene, it's hard for me to believe that doing a language port would > make > > more sense than working on those tweaks. Please fill me in on the > > rationale. You might want to put the response in a FAQ somewhere. The > > website doesn't have one. > > > > Thanks. > > > > ~ David Smiley > > > >
