RavenDB is also using Lucene.Net as core for the product On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Phil Haack <phi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks all. Here's the list of some companies making use of Lucene.NET in > their products. > > * IntelliEnterprise Intranet Suite > * Umbraco http://umbraco.codeplex.com > * BBC UK Motorgear site > * Orchard (Outercurve Foundation, but sponsored by Microsoft) > * Autodesk > * MindTouch > * Bluewire Technologies - Epro > * Koders.com - Black Duck Software > * Oxford Analytica - http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx > > I'm sure there are many others. I think it would be helpful to put this on > the Lucene.NET page, though I'd double check with each to make sure we have > permission to put their endorsement on the page. This also helps to serve as > a starting point in trying to drum up support. :) > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Powell [mailto:m...@aaron-powell.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:50 PM > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: companies using Lucene.NET (was RE: Lucene.NET Community > Status) > > Every install of Umbraco 4.5.x (http://umbraco.codeplex.com) ships with a > Lucene.Net search API OOTB in the form of Examine ( > http://examine.codeplex.com) > Aaron Powell > Umbraco Ninja > > http://www.aaron-powell.com | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: > aaron.l.powell | MSN: aaz...@hotmail.com > > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Moray McConnachie < > mmcco...@oxford-analytica.com> wrote: > > > Oxford Analytica - implement content search facilities at > > http://www.oxan.com/DetailedSearch.aspx > > > > M. > > ------------------------------------- > > Moray McConnachie > > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 > > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nic Wise [mailto:n...@fastchicken.co.nz] > > Sent: 03 November 2010 17:09 > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status > > > > Thats Top Gear :) - www.topgear.com > > > > Quest Archive Manager (maybe others in there too) - > > http://www.quest.com/archive_manager > > ComArchive (a very similar Exchange archiving product. Better, IMO, > > but they, I'm biased) - www.comarchive.com > > > > I can't speak for the last 2, not working for either any more... > > (kinda...) but I know they use it :) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 16:29, Simone Chiaretta > > <simone.chiare...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Well... as far as I know > > > > > > Umbraco (which is opensource but also backed by a company) Sitecore > > > RavenDB (which again is both opensource but with a commercial > > > license) BBC uk is using it for the Motorgear site > > > > > > Simone > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Phil Haack <phi...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Anyone have a list of commercial companies making use of Lucene.NET > > >> (who are willing to share that fact?). > > >> > > >> Phil > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: nima dilmaghani [mailto:nim...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:26 AM > > >> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status > > >> > > >> Successful, sufficiently sophisticated open source projects share > > >> one thing in common. Financial backing by commercial interests in > > >> terms of putting developers on the project or hiring top > > >> contributors and assigning the open source project to them as part > > >> of their work responsibilities. We have seen this over and over > > >> again. With Lucene > > being a perfect example. > > >> > > >> 1. The Microsoft .NET platform needs a search solution as part of > > >> its ecosystem of tools and technologies if it wants to compete > > >> successfully with Java and other open source technologies. > > >> > > >> 2. There are many companies that are benefiting from Lucene.net. > > >> Some of these companies are large enough to contribute developer > > >> resources to this project. Some of these companies also benefit > > >> sufficiently from the health of Lucene.net that it is in their own > > >> best > > interest to do so. > > >> > > >> 3. Open source has never been a significant part of the Microsoft > > >> ecosystem's DNA. However, in the recent years, Microsoft has > > >> contributed to some (while small) number of open source projects by > > >> devoting developer resources to it (jQuery) or by hiring top > > contributors (John Lam/Iron Ruby). > > >> > > >> 4. Until the commercial .NET community embraces Lucene.net with > > >> developer resources, the health of this project will continue to go > > >> up and down > > >> because: > > >> > > >> a. A project mainly consisting of porting code line by line from > > >> Java is not particularly sexy to most developers for them to spend > > >> nights and weekends on it without financial reward. > > >> > > >> b. If a branch is created that would .NETify the project and > > >> rewrite some logic, it will need a significant number of highly > > >> capable developers with prior search experience. Putting a group > > >> like that together without financial backing would be very difficult. > > >> > > >> In my opinion, the best way forward for this project is: > > >> > > >> a. For those on this list, who are part of a commercial entity that > > >> is benefiting from Lucene.net, to have a frank discussion about > > >> devoting developer resources to this project with their managers. > > >> > > >> b. Microsoft devote developer resources to the project and > > >> encourage other companies to join it in this effort. The Microsoft > > >> ecosystem is very much a top down world. Examples are set by > > >> Microsoft, and Microsoft has sufficient convincing power to get > partners involved. > > >> > > >> Only with commercial vendor backing, we can guarantee the health of > > >> this project going forward. > > >> > > >> Thanks to you all! > > >> > > >> p.s. If a sufficiently powerful tool is found that would do most of > > >> the heavy lifting, then the above will no longer apply. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Ciaran Roarty > > >> <ciaran.roa...@gmail.com > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > >> > Also, and this is a persistent theme in many people's emails, why > > >> > is there such a determined view that the search internals - the > > >> > crown jewels as described elsewhere - cannot be understood? > > >> > > > >> > It may take a long time to innovate in that area but I can't see > > >> > that it is impossible. > > >> > > > >> > Ciaran > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <geo...@aroush.net> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Everyone, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one > response. > > >> > > The points is in no significant order or priority. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with > > >> > > Java look and fell, all the way from API to classes to > > >> > > exceptions. If this is valuable option for your need, you can > > >> > > do it with ease; you don't need > > >> > the > > >> > > support of ASF or Lucene developers. Just use IKVM and off you > go. > > >> > > With this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's > > >> > > being asked of Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources > > >> > > (books, examples, support, > > >> > > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of > > >> > > Lucene the > > >> > day > > >> > > Java Lucene is released. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside > > >> > > JLCA which > > >> > is > > >> > > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at. Keep in mind > > >> > > that until when they are tried out, and their quality is > > >> > > analyzed, they are just another tools beside JLCA. In > > >> > > addition, since those are different tools, the output C# code > > >> > > may not be consistent with exiting > > >> Lucene.Net code. > > >> > If > > >> > > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API > > >> > > layer; > > >> > the > > >> > > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with > > >> > > existing clients. My preference is to stick with JLCA, since > > >> > > I'm familiar with it and know have written scripts to highlight > > >> > > where it > > >> falls short. > > >> > However, I > > >> > > would like to see others try out other tools and report back. > > >> > > I would be really surprise to see any tool doing much better > > >> > > than JLCA because if > > >> > such > > >> > > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects. > > >> > > In > > >> > another > > >> > > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net: If you really want this, just start > > >> > > a new > > >> > project > > >> > > at ASF or someone where else. I really don't see Lucene.Net > > >> > > achieving > > >> > this > > >> > > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over > > >> > > the years on this mailing list. If you start such a project, > > >> > > it shouldn't be called Lucene.Net because that new project will > > >> > > produce a C# Lucene which is no longer compatible with existing > > >> > > Lucene.Net clients as the public API will now diverge. In > > >> > > addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es > > >> > you > > >> > > make your Lucene, existing available resources about Lucene > > >> > > (web, books, mailing list, etc). You will also need good > > >> > > knowledge of search engines, and the internals of Lucene to > > >> > > make > > this happen. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes > > >> > > and APIs Lucene.Net has to offer (see: > > >> > > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks > > >> > > like I > > >> > never > > >> > > created doc for 2.9.x). Do you plan to cover them all? Only > > >> > > part of > > >> it? > > >> > > Are you ready to support it? If so, you can start such a > > >> > > project at ASF > > >> > or > > >> > > somewhere else. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all). > > >> > > Just > > >> > open > > >> > > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to > > >> > > convert > > >> it. > > >> > > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common > > >> > > compiler, environment and .NET Framework. This way, you can > > >> > > support a wider > > >> > audience > > >> > > as possible (even mono). Remember, not everyone wants the > > >> > > source code, > > >> > or > > >> > > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release > DLL. > > >> > > Java Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene > 3.0. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF: This is a big one. Many corporation and > > >> > > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software > > >> > > over other > > >> > open > > >> > > source software with very little, if any, reservation. The > > >> > > license model > > >> > of > > >> > > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF > > >> > > demands of > > >> > its > > >> > > project is well known and sound. When you grab an ASF project, > > >> > > which has gone through incubation and graduated, you know you > > >> > > are getting a > > >> > software > > >> > > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows > > >> > > about the software, and the team will be around to back it up > > >> > > and support it. At > > >> > ASF, > > >> > > there is a established process which all graduated projects > fallow. > > >> > > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level > > >> > > of > > >> > standard. > > >> > > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene > > >> > > 1.9 which > > >> > was > > >> > > pre-graduation. This is why Grant has raised this issue, to > > >> > > send us back into incubation or attic (retire). > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more > > >> > > dedicated and active than others. I was the initial and sole > > >> > > committer since > > >> > > 2004 > > >> > (even > > >> > > prior to that on SourceForg.net). This change since 2008 when > > >> > > we added DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed -- > > >> > > they took my initial port and cleaned up open issues. When > > >> > > folks are saying there is 1 committer, I think they mean to say > > >> > > there is only 1 committer who has > > >> > done > > >> > > the initial ports. Let us not forgot to give credit where it's > due. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port: I want to > > >> > > say few things about this even though I pointed them earlier, > > >> > > but just to make it clear. While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't > > >> > > have the full fell of > > >> > .NET'nes > > >> > > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact > > >> > > that Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a > > >> > > question on Java Lucene mailing list and everyone will know > > >> > > what you are talking > > >> about. > > >> > It > > >> > > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by > > >> > > doing a side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for > > >> > > deep Lucene or search engine expertise). It means existing > > >> > > Lucene resources are available for you. It means a bug in Java > > >> > > Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net. It means a rock solid Java > > >> > > Lucene is what Lucene.Net will > > >> be. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 9) Back to incubation: The reason to go back to incubation is > > >> > > mainly to make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project > > >> > > is stamped with, > > >> > holds > > >> > > to ASF's core. As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into > > >> > > graduation, has failed on this front. As I pointed out > > >> > > earlier, there hasn't been any official release other than the > > >> > > one I did way > > >> back in 2006 for 1.9. > > >> > Having > > >> > > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project > > >> > > does > > >> > injustice > > >> > > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 10) Comparing this project to X: You can look hard and deep to > > >> > > find > > >> > reason > > >> > > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X. My take on it > > >> > > is, > > >> > unlike > > >> > > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere > > >> > > else, Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who > > >> > > actually get paid > > >> > to > > >> > > work on it. Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles > > >> > > or effort spent on this project by anyone is going to be an > > >> > > after though even if > > >> > you > > >> > > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will > > >> > > most likely commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done. > > >> > > This is also true > > >> > for > > >> > > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > 11) Lucene contrib: I don't know how many folks know this, but > > >> > > I also ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes. Check the > > >> > > ported > > >> list: > > >> > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/c > > >> > > on > > >> > > tri > > >> > > b/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > So where do we go from here? Unless if there are further > > >> > > discussions > > >> or > > >> > > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting > > >> > > actual > > >> > results > > >> > > done. To do so, I will start a new email thread on this > > >> > > subject sometime tomorrow. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- George > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Nima > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Simone Chiaretta > > > Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider > > > Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz > > > RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber > > > twitter: @simonech > > > > > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > > > "Life is short, play hard" > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nic Wise > > t. +44 7788 592806 | @fastchicken | > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise > > b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Disclaimer > > > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. > > If this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or > > disclose them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > Oxford Analytica Ltd > > Registered in England: No. 1196703 > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > -- Simone Chiaretta Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber twitter: @simonech Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic "Life is short, play hard"
