Digy, Thanks for trying. I asked actually David to try , as he had started the discussion :) I agree, Solr is better if all searching/indexing happening on a server and having JVM in addition to .Net doesn't really matter as long as all works reasonably fast. In my case, Lucene on a desktop , so a requirement for JVM to be installed ( though quite likely it has been installed ) instead of huge DLL is not much better. Please explain if you meant something else.
Michael On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Digy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > With my simple application; basic functions(indexing&searching) of > Lucene(2.3.1) works well( I have not tested the performance). > > But the problem, I think, is the "java framework ported to .NET(~26M)" > that > I have to use. > > If I wanted to use Lucene.java, I would use Solr and call its methods from > a > .NET client. > > DIGY. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for > ports? > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
