Instead of doing it this way, do NOT create Occur using separate static
fields.
Merge Parameter into Occur (only used there) and create the entire
dictionary once.
Otherwise, you run into risk of the ArgumentException.
If that happens, because this is raised from the static ctor, you'll have
I would assume that you would have to match the java behavior, if only to
make sure that the index format matched.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Kim Christensen k...@dubex.dk wrote:
Hi all,
I was looking into porting some Lucene 4x code, and ran into the issue
about Big-Endian and
As someone from the nhibernate project
We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it
We have mire features, less bugs and better code base
Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re:
Okay, cool
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Robert Jordan robe...@gmx.net wrote:
On 21.02.2011 05:55, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2011-02-20, Robert Jordan wrote:
On 20.02.2011 07:49, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
If you talk about strong naming assemblies then I don't have any
experience how a
Please avoid doing that, it would result in two assemblies, built against
the same version of lucene.net being unable to operate, since each uses a
different snk.
See log4net 1.0.9 and 1.0.10 fiasco for how much problems this can cause.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Stefan Bodewig
Educate my users?
That is hardly my role. They get the benefit of being able to run a patch
version without undue hassle.
NHibernate 1.x tried to have a secret snk, and that failed pretty miserably
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2011-02-21, Ayende
There are many situations where you _have_ to have a strong key, or example,
gac deployments.
In those cases, anything in the chain also have to have strong key. Most OSS
in .NET have signed binary releases, and the snk is usually in the source
code.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Stefan
Off topic, can we get a [Lucene.NET] prefix for messages to the list?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote:
Where does that site compile to? The incubator lucene.net site appears to
be the older one
It would also have drastic affects on other people using Lucene for
commercial and OSS projects.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
sorry I started this before doing my homework. If we took the IKVM
route Lucene.NET's binary distribution could not
JetBrains routinely give away licenses for OSS
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Prescott Nasser geobmx...@hotmail.comwrote:
I wonder if we could get a free license for open source. A few people have
mentioned that often companies have these provisions.
-Original Message-
From: Peter
The reasoning for this class doesn't hold for .NET, but that is beside the
point.
There is somewhere in Lucene where this doesn't clean up (specifically,
ThreadResources for Term Cache)
That results in ClosableThreadLocal.slots filling up.
I fixed this by modifying ClosableThreadLocal to use the
No, I am using Lucene.NET 2.9.2, and it showed up there.
More specifically, I forked it around r48322
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Robert Jordan robe...@gmx.net wrote:
On 15.12.2010 12:58, Robert Jordan wrote:
On 15.12.2010 09:12, Ayende Rahien wrote:
The reasoning for this class
The #1 problem with Lucene is that it doesn't implement IDisposable, which
make it _very_ awkward to use in .NET
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Thompson pierogi...@hotmail.comwrote:
I think a better pattern than partial classes would be extension methods
(like the way LINQ works with
As a user of Lucene, I would much rather have a .NET port than IKVM.
The reasoning behind this is simple, I often need to extend Lucene, or
modify it in some small ways, and it is much easier to do it if this is all
a .NET project.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Ryan Hoffman rhoff...@tntp.org
I run into an interesting perf issue just now.
100 runs of this query: Name:WILLY @ 224ms
100 runs of this query: Name:WIL* @ 790ms
There are ~5000 documents in the index, two fields, Name is using
StandardAnalyzer.
Is there supposed to be that big a perf difference between the two?
Um, my understanding was that NULL or * was the way to specify an open ended
range query, isn't that the case?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:21 PM, digy digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote:
just string comparison:
'2' 'N'
'*' '2'
DIGY
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ayende Rahien aye
16 matches
Mail list logo
