Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has outlined
below.
If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose out on
the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make.
It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search, a deep
knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the knowledge
will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be give.
When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it has
moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to abandoning a
line by line port.
By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and .NET
goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the moment); but
leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
Just my tu-pence worth.
Kind Regards
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Moray McConnachie
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM
To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the
history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, all
the understanding of search, all the new features come from the Lucene
Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust them
to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and to
have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on.
Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET
who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot more
value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll take
a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is significantly
diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at what
stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all?
At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to continue,
and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction.
So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be
sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using Lucene
in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. So
let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general structure
close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance
set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other methods
and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same
file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of similarity,
with good documentation and help being available from the Java
community.
Yours,
Moray
-------------------------------------
Moray McConnachie
Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com]
Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
This is has been discussed many times.
Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a
line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene.
- Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardena...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net
2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a
line-by-line port. Starting with Digy's excellent work on the
conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2
packages would not be interchangeable. So faster turnaround from a java
release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will have to wait
until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code base.
My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port?
Anyone have a comment?
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------
