...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:43 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
I think when I said I want all those things - I meant it as
an incremental, but something that we woudln't shy away from
doing like we've done so
something or feel we
should do
something. ~P
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:09 -0500
From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach
: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:42 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Andy,
You said far more eloquently exactly what I was trying to say. That is
exactly how I feel the project should progress.
Thanks,
Christopher
On Fri, Dec 30
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business owners,
community
builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a second.
You have limited resources: time, budget, personnel, etc.
What
...@gmail.com
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Thought I'd add my opinion as a user of Lucene.net...
My company processes content from several feeds (mainly web but also social
media). The volumes are fairly large (100M's of documents
From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business
owners,
community
builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers
[mailto:currens.ch...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:42 AM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Andy,
You said far more eloquently exactly what I was trying to say. That is
exactly how I feel the project should progress
Howard
Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
My vote goes to merging the two:
Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g to 3.X development, using
generics
where possible, Disposable vs
want something or feel we
should do
something. ~P
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:09 -0500
From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business
version anyway - we might as well build off of that?
From:
digyd...@gmail.com To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:45:23 +0200 Subject: RE:
[Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4gbut I
guess
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
I don't see the g branch differing all that much from the line-by-line port.
All the g branch does is change some data types as generics, but line by
line the code the same once the generics are declared.
I don't see 2.9.4g being any
-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
I don't see the g branch differing all that much from the line-by-line port.
All the g branch does is change some data types as generics, but line by
line the code the same once the generics are declared.
I don't see
to give it a once over
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Digy
Sent: 12/29/2011 1:30 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
I forgot to mention, 2.9.4g implements IDisposable for many of the classes
that has
-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
I don't see the g branch differing all that much from the line-by-line port.
All the g branch does is change some data types as generics, but line by
line the code the same once the generics are declared.
I don't see
-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
When I started that g branch, I had no intention to change the API, but at
the end it resulted in a few changes
like StopAnalyzer(Liststring stopWords),
Query.ExtractTerms(ICollectionstring) etc.
But I think, a drop
From: Troy Howard
Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
My vote goes to merging the two:
Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g to 3.X development, using generics
where possible, Disposable vs Close, and exposing
to manage that without some large adjustments to the
API.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Troy Howard
Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
My vote goes to merging the two
adjustments to the
API.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Troy Howard
Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
My vote goes to merging the two:
Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
My vote goes to merging the two:
Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g to 3.X development, using generics
where possible, Disposable vs Close, and exposing *additional* APIs
for generics
From: Digy
Sent: 12/29/2011 1:16 PM
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
When I started that g branch, I had no intention to change the API,
but at
the end it resulted in a few changes
like
...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business owners, community
builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a second.
You have limited resources: time
From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business owners, community
builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a second.
You have limited
To make it clear - I want a .Net idiomatic API as the only API. I've got
experience with both kinds of APIs - strict transliterated from Java and
translated from Java to .Net. For me, the choice is pretty clear - the
latter has the advantage when it comes to long-term maintenance and support
from
...@wickedsoftware.net
To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business owners,
community
builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a second.
You have limited resources
One of the benefits of moving forward with the conversion of the Java
Lucene, is that they're using more recent versions of Java that support
things like generics and enums, so the direct port is getting more and more
like .NET, though not in all respects of course. I'm of the mind, though,
that
-u...@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
One of the benefits of moving forward with the conversion of the Java
Lucene, is that they're using more recent versions of Java that support
things like generics and enums, so the direct port is getting more and more
of that?
From: digyd...@gmail.com To:
lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:45:23 +0200
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4gbut I guess the
future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is becoming more
That's a great question - I know a lot of people like the generics, and I don't
really want it to disappear. I'd like to keep it in parity with the trunk. But
I know we also have a goal of making Lucene.Net more .Net like (further than
2.9.4g), and I don't know how that fits in. We are a
28 matches
Mail list logo
