+1
Do you want to post it on the user list? It might also be good to put
it up on the main website.
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Grant: how to poll users? How about this:
http://www.quimble.com/poll/view/2156 ? If you think that's ok, we can send
that to java-user tomorrow and see. Hey, how
I'll just send it to java-user in a bit in order to get the answers only from
Lucene users (and not peeps just passing by lucene.apache.org).
Otis
- Original Message
From: Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 6:53:57 AM
Subject:
Hi folks,
I realize this question is not directly related to Lucene, but I believe
it's worth asking.
With Lucene.Net (for those who don't know, is a port of Jakarta Lucene from
Java to C#) I use NUnit to test the same test code (ported to C#) that JUnit
test. When I run the NUnit test there are
On 6/16/06, George Aroush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
I realize this question is not directly related to Lucene, but I believe
it's worth asking.
With Lucene.Net (for those who don't know, is a port of Jakarta Lucene from
Java to C#) I use NUnit to test the same test code (ported to C#
Hello everyone,
it was quiet the last week, well I had a bad cold so Milestone 2
starts a bit late...
Milestone 2 is about client authentication. GData client auth is also
defined (well kind of) in the gdata protocol reference on
code.google.com. The client is supposed to support either a cookie
Hi Simon and all,
It's not clear to me when setUp()/tearDown() is called. Are they called
before/after each call to testBarelyCloseEnough(), testExact(),
testMulipleTerms(), etc? If so, then the NUnit is not doing this. I tested
by outputing to stdout.
I don't have JUnit setup to see what it d
index optimize problem
--
Key: LUCENE-603
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-603
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Bug
Components: Index
Versions: 1.9
Environment: CentOS 4.0 , Lucene 1.9, Eclipse 3.1
Reporter: Dedian Gu
Hi,
> testBarelyCloseEnough(), testExact(), testMulipleTerms(),
> etc? If so, then the NUnit is not doing this. I tested by
> outputing to stdout.
NUnit calls setUp before each test and calls tearDown after each test.
Add Console.WriteLine and see the result.
Let me show:
--
do we need a flag to check open status for IndexWriter and IndexSearcher
Key: LUCENE-604
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-604
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Wish
Versions: 2.0
Hi Dedian,
Can you write a self-contained test case that reproduces the problem?
Thanks,
Grant
Dedian Guo (JIRA) wrote:
index optimize problem
--
Key: LUCENE-603
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-603
Project: Lucene - Java
Type
ok, let me try with some dummy documents...
On 6/16/06, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dedian,
Can you write a self-contained test case that reproduces the problem?
Thanks,
Grant
Dedian Guo (JIRA) wrote:
> index optimize problem
> --
>
> Key: LUCEN
Hi Pasha,
That is defiantly not happening in my case. Here is an output:
Setup()
TestBarelyCloseEnough()
TestExact()
TestMulipleTerms()
TestNotCloseEnough()
TestOrderDoesntMatter()
TestPhraseQueryInConjunctionScorer()
TestPhraseQueryWithStopAnalyzer()
TestSlop1()
TestSlopScoring()
TestWrappedPhr
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-604?page=comments#action_12416572 ]
Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-604:
-
IW and IS will only get closed if you call close() on them, so you should be
able to track their status in your application,
Hi,
> From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> That is defiantly not happening in my case. Here is an output:
>
> Which version of NUnit are you using? I am using 2.2.8.
2.2.0.
But I've downloaded 2.2.8 and test it. It produces the same results:
setUp is called before each test
If you look for a nice way to do that have a look at the solr source
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/solr/trunk/src/java/org/apache/solr/util/RefCounted.java?view=markup
this is 1.5 source but you can realize that with 1.4 as well ;)
simon
On 6/16/06, Otis Gospodnetic (JIRA) <[EMAIL PRO
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550?page=comments#action_12416583 ]
Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-550:
There is a bug with phrase queries. Possible term positions. Low priority for
me.
> InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming i
Hi Simon,
I have a bit of experience with REST and authentication from my work on
http://simpy.com .
If you look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simpy-dev/messages you will see
several recent messages about different authentication options that may give
you some food for thought.
As for GData
It looks like I would have won a beer had anyone wagered me.
1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?
Otis
- Original Message
From: Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent:
On 17/06/2006, at 6:36 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Hi Simon,
- GData oversion page describes the auth with "send a cookie/token,
save in server-side, and then expect it from the client on
subsequent requests" (paraphrased). That sounds fine to me. I
don't think you need to worry about
On 6/16/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Simon,
I have a bit of experience with REST and authentication from my work on
http://simpy.com .
If you look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/simpy-dev/messages you will see
several recent messages about different authentication optio
go tiger go!
everybody not using 1.5 should visite java.sun.com downloading the 1.5 vm!!
On 6/16/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It looks like I would have won a beer had anyone wagered me.
1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
Does this mean we
: 1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
:
: Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?
The poll has only been up for 17 hours, and it was allready after 5PM on
a Friday in some parts of the world when you posted the poll ... maybe
we should give the folks i
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-406?page=all ]
Hoss Man reassigned LUCENE-406:
---
Assign To: Hoss Man
> sort missing string fields last
> ---
>
> Key: LUCENE-406
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira
Are there any written (or unwritten) guidelines on when something should
be commited to the core code base vs when a contrib module should be used?
Obviously if a new feature rquires changing APIs omodifying one of the
existing core classes, then that kind of needs to be in the core -- and
there
Simon,
I don't fully understand your question, but if sessions are replicated, then
the GData cluster doesn't care which GData server the client contacts, as they
will all already have the token that was given to the client. On subsequent
requests, the client will have to send the token. I am
On 6/17/06, Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Simon,
I don't fully understand your question, but if sessions are replicated, then
the GData cluster doesn't care which GData server the client contacts, as they
will all already have the token that was given to the client. On subsequen
>1.5 IS the Java version that the majority Lucene users use, not 1.4!
>Does this mean we can now start accepting 1.5 code?
This isn't simply about which JVM gets used the most wins.
This is about "how many Lucene users will we inconvenience or lose by
moving to 1.5?"
Right now the survey sampl
Make Explanation include information about match/non-match
--
Key: LUCENE-605
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-605
Project: Lucene - Java
Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Reporter: H
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-605?page=all ]
Hoss Man updated LUCENE-605:
Attachment: demo-fix.patch
Demo of the basic direction I'm going. This patch inlcudes some changes to the
Explanation class to include the new information, as well as
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-451?page=all ]
Hoss Man reassigned LUCENE-451:
---
Assign To: Hoss Man
> BooleanQuery explain with boost==0
> --
>
> Key: LUCENE-451
> URL: http://issues.apache.or
Hi ,chuck. I have implment my own parallelReader by override methods like
Document and ParallelTermDocs ,and it really works.Your idea isnpired me and
I highly appreciate you help.Maybe after some bug fix I can contribute my
code so that everyone can share the idea and implementation if they
encou
Wu,
Glad to hear that! Congratulations on getting it working. Looking
forward to your contribution,
Chuck
wu fox wrote on 06/16/2006 03:30 PM:
> Hi ,chuck. I have implment my own parallelReader by override methods like
> Document and ParallelTermDocs ,and it really works.Your idea isnpired
> m
I think you should port Lucene to MS-DOS...
If your app can't move beyond MS-DOS, then you stick with version 1.9 (or
2.0 in this case).
If you can't innovate and move forward, you die.
Java has a GREAT history of supporting prior versions. At some point though
you need to be able to move forwar
The main arguments have never been about coding simplicity. I think the
arguments presented thus far boil down to this:
1. (Pro 1.5) All the committers, and to a lesser extent the patch
contributors, whose use 1.5 regularly in their standard
environments and will make more contribu
thread local storage bug in 1.9 RC1 build 4
---
Key: LUCENENET-7
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-7
Project: Lucene.NET
Type: Bug
Environment: Windows Server 2003 on VMware, .NET 2.0.50727
Reporter: AqD
DateField bug in 1.9 RC1 build 4
Key: LUCENENET-6
URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-6
Project: Lucene.NET
Type: Bug
Environment: Windows Server 2003 on Vmware, .NET 2.0.50727
Reporter: AqD
Lucene.Net/Document
36 matches
Mail list logo
