I agree with Jordan. I think keeping the internals closer to java is
going to help picking up the advancements on the other side of the
fence. It's the public facing API that would benefit from a more C#
API if anything.
Arne Claassen
MindTouch
San Diego, CA
http://twitter.com/sdether
On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:
On 01.11.2010 19:04, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
If the API was kept as-is then the Lucene in Action examples would
be correct.
There are obvious correlations with Mono in this regard.
With all due respect, where is the point of porting Lucene's internals
to something more .NET-like while keeping the same external API?
What's wrong with Lucene's internals, the "crown jewels" that makes
Lucene.NET's efforts worthwhile?
Robert
C
On 1 Nov 2010, at 16:34, Robert Jordan<robe...@gmx.net> wrote:
On 01.11.2010 15:50, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
Then I think it will die.
Ask Digy, George, Doug, and Michael how they feel about working
hard to port
the current source and get continually hit with questions on the
mailing
list that a quick search ( no pun intended ) could have resolved.
And a new incompatible Lucene.NET would not raise any questions?
You won't be even able to point them to something like
"Lucene in Action" because there will be no book about
"Lucene.NET done right" for at least a decade.
Mono doesn't port from .NET but they do match the API.
I fail to see any similarity.
Robert
