Hi,
On 02.02.2012 03:27, Jean-Sylvain Boige wrote:
Sorry again if this is not the right thread, but what feature of .Net
4.0 do you currently leverage that wouldn't compile on 3.5? (which
would be fine for us) Troy, can we really compare the impact of
moving Lucene development to vs2010 to that
Hi,
With your patch, words like
Haus
Häuser
will have different a root.
How did you test your changes? Can you provide some statistics,
like how many over- and understemming your patch will produce
for a 50.000 words corpus?
Anyway, such changes are likely not acceptable because they
break th
On 22.09.2011 00:16, Robert Jordan wrote:
Hi Digy,
On 21.09.2011 23:38, Digy wrote:
@Robert
Also, the fix for [LUCENENET-358] is basically making Lucene.Net.dll a
.NET 4.0-only assembly:
There is a commented part at the end of the CloseableThreadLocal which
may
seem familiar to you
7;d rather get rid of Init() for this code:
static SupportClass.WeakHashTable slots = new SupportClass.WeakHashTable();
Robert
DIGY
-Original Message-----
From: Robert Jordan [mailto:robe...@gmx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3:09 PM
To: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org
S
o
.NET 4.0 and drop support for previous versions.
I'll take care of build scripts issue while they being refactored into
smaller chunks this week.
@Troy, Agreed.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Robert Jordan wrote:
On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey all seems like we are set
On 20.09.2011 23:48, Prescott Nasser wrote:
Hey all seems like we are set with 2.9.4? Feedback has been positive and its
been quiet. Do we feel ready to vote for a new release?
I don't know if the build infrastructure is part of the
release. If yes, then there is an open issue:
Contrib doesn'
Hi Digy,
On 13.09.2011 22:12, Digy wrote:
I created a working portuguese stemmer (
http://people.apache.org/~digy/PortugueseStemmerNew.cs ) from
http://snowball.tartarus.org/archives/snowball-discuss/0943.html
http://snowball.tartarus.org/archives/snowball-discuss/att-0943/01-SnowballC
Sharp
On 27.04.2011 17:40, Amanuel Workneh wrote:
Am I correct that your trial code changes make this version of Lucene.NET
incompatible and un-buildable with any version of .NET prior to 4.0?
As I understand it, 2.9.4g only replaces non-generic collections with
generic ones. Generics was introduced
On 11.04.2011 15:18, Rafael Bueno wrote:
Good morning. I wonder if you can help me with a problem. Working on
a project that uses version 1.0 of Castle ActiveRecords and we are
migrating to version 3.0 RC, but this version requires the assembly
"Lucene.Net, Version = 2.9.2.2, Culture = neutral, P
On 21.02.2011 18:08, Troy Howard wrote:
Do we allow our SNK to be public and then run the risks of allowing
anyone to create a DLL using our signature? or do we find a way to
manage our private key privately?
We should publish the key because assembly signing was never
designed to provide the s
On 28.01.2011 15:18, Simone Chiaretta wrote:
Hi guys,
I just subscribed to the dev list, and I think a lot is going on these days.
Can someone do a very quick recap or point me to some doc with the status of
the proposal?
I don't believe it! :) Feel free to browse January's mail archive:
http
oks like this:
Token: "aaa": S:0, E:3
Token: "bbb": S:4, E:7
Token: "test": S:8, E:12
Token: "test": S:14, E:18
Token: "ccc": S:19, E:22
Token: "ddd": S:23, E:26
You can see that the "&&" characters were identified as separ
On 15.12.2010 12:58, Robert Jordan wrote:
On 15.12.2010 09:12, Ayende Rahien wrote:
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
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-384?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12965297#action_12965297
]
Robert Jordan commented on LUCENENET-384:
-
The current version of Lucene.Ne
On 10.11.2010 16:47, Ryan Hoffman wrote:
I would say that performance is paramount, and I'm assuming that
everyone else would agree. I think it's a great idea to try both
IKVM and Sharpen and then make a few benchmarks that we compare
both.
Please search the mailing list because this idea was
On 18.05.2010 15:33, Ravi Patel wrote:
Two Questions:
1. Is there a cost at search-time in making fields Tokenized that
don't need to be? I assume there's a cost at Index time, but I'm not
too worried about the Index cost.
Which analyzer are your using at index time?
2. Should fields tha
version is the path below?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C#/src/Lucene.Net/Document/Document.cs
Regards
Leo
2.9.x with x == 2 ATM.
Robert
2010/5/5 Robert Jordan
On 05.05.2010 14:01, Leonardo Azize Martins wrote:
Hi,
Good morning for all. (For me is morning)
I
On 05.05.2010 14:01, Leonardo Azize Martins wrote:
Hi,
Good morning for all. (For me is morning)
I had compared files in C# and in Java, from:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/lucene/src/java/org/apache/lucene/document/Document.java
You're comparing Java's trunk with .NET's 2
Environment: All
Reporter: Robert Jordan
Priority: Minor
I've updated SupportClass.SharpZipLib to perform much faster reflection calls
using delegates in place of Type.InvokeMethod.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this ema
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12859512#action_12859512
]
Robert Jordan commented on LUCENENET-357:
-
> I am eager to see a weak-re
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-357?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12859452#action_12859452
]
Robert Jordan commented on LUCENENET-357:
-
The WeakReference issue is cause
21 matches
Mail list logo
