FAQ
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

Search Discussions

  • Kieran Logan at Jun 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm
    Hi Scott

    Can only speak for my own interests. The line-by-line port is not of
    interest or to put it another way, I would consider a .Net 4 version which
    uses the framework optimally of far greater interest than a line-by-line
    port.

    Kieran



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: 29 June 2011 19:58
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
  • Prescott Nasser at Jun 29, 2011 at 7:20 pm
    I agree, a line by line is of little use to me. Sent from my Windows Phone

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kieran Logan
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:15 PM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?


    Hi Scott

    Can only speak for my own interests. The line-by-line port is not of
    interest or to put it another way, I would consider a .Net 4 version which
    uses the framework optimally of far greater interest than a line-by-line
    port.

    Kieran



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: 29 June 2011 19:58
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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






  • Wyatt Barnett at Jun 29, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    I generally agree -- line by line just isn't the way to go unless one
    could find a way to completely automatically and mechanically port the
    java codebase. That said, I think there are a few things that should
    be kept in mind as the codebases begin to diverge:

    * Index file format is something to keep identical -- at the very
    least, one can ride the mass of static tooling built around java
    lucene indexes and keeps the door open to heterogeneous systems.

    * By and large the logic of the package should remain the same. IE,
    analyizers should have the same role in both systems. Makes for easier
    cross-pollenization of add-ons and extensions and allows for the body
    of documentation to be useful at least in spirit.

    Neither of those goals would require any sort of line-by-line port to
    be maintained.
    On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
    I agree, a line by line is of little use to me.

    Sent from my Windows Phone

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kieran Logan
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:15 PM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?


    Hi Scott

    Can only speak for my own interests. The line-by-line port is not of
    interest or to put it another way, I would consider a .Net 4 version which
    uses the framework optimally of far greater interest than a line-by-line
    port.

    Kieran



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: 29 June 2011 19:58
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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






  • Ben West at Jun 29, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    What do we mean by diverging the code? Is it just putting <T> on the types to make them generic, or more?

    If there would be major changes, I think we might value the correctness guaranteed by the fact that it's similar to Java over any performance benefits. But that is my two cents - we haven't had any performance issues with Lucene, so no need to fix what ain't broke for us.

    -Ben


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc:
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:33 PM
    Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

    I generally agree -- line by line just isn't the way to go unless one
    could find a way to completely automatically and mechanically port the
    java codebase. That said, I think there are a few things that should
    be kept in mind as the codebases begin to diverge:

    * Index file format is something to keep identical -- at the very
    least, one can ride the mass of static tooling built around java
    lucene indexes and keeps the door open to heterogeneous systems.

    * By and large the logic of the package should remain the same. IE,
    analyizers should have the same role in both systems. Makes for easier
    cross-pollenization of add-ons and extensions and allows for the body
    of documentation to be useful at least in spirit.

    Neither of those goals would require any sort of line-by-line port to
    be maintained.
    On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Prescott Nasser wrote:
    I agree, a line by line is of little use to me.

    Sent from my Windows Phone

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Kieran Logan
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:15 PM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?


    Hi Scott

    Can only speak for my own interests. The line-by-line port is not of
    interest or to put it another way, I would consider a .Net 4 version which
    uses the framework optimally of far greater interest than a line-by-line
    port.

    Kieran



    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: 29 June 2011 19:58
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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






  • Granroth, Neal V. at Jun 29, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    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
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
  • Moray McConnachie at Jun 30, 2011 at 9:25 am
    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.
    Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
    ---------------------------------------------------------
  • Noel Lysaght at Jun 30, 2011 at 9:38 am
    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-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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.
    Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
    ---------------------------------------------------------
  • Scott Lombard at Jun 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm
    Ok, here is a better question. Digy in the 2.9.4g have you maintained a
    strict adherence to the line by line porting method? If not what have your
    considerations when deviating from the Java.

    Scott
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Noel Lysaght
    Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:39 AM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
    Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

    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-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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.
    Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
    ---------------------------------------------------------
  • Digy at Jun 30, 2011 at 4:38 pm
    "strict adherence to the line by line porting method"? Of course not.
    But having similar looking code is good if you want to port *manually*.
    See for ex,
    https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12483888/LUCENE-3234.patch
    .
    Porting that patch to Lucene.Net was very easy just because of this.

    I don't think I have strict or objective rules for porting.
    While looking at a patch in Java, if I can find out what to do in Lucene.Net
    easily, that is enough.

    I used some lamdas too just to make the code more similar to the java
    version. For ex,
    compare the java code

    cache = new FilterCache<DocIdSet>(deletesMode) {
    @Override
    public DocIdSet mergeDeletes(final IndexReader r, final DocIdSet
    docIdSet) {
    return new FilteredDocIdSet(docIdSet) {
    @Override
    protected boolean match(int docID) {
    return !r.isDeleted(docID);
    }
    };
    }
    };

    with the code in comment(17/May/11) in
    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-412

    I am not against idiomatic port if we can keep up with the progress of
    Lucene.Java.
    But for now, I'll stick to line-by-line port.

    DIGY

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:47 PM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

    Ok, here is a better question. Digy in the 2.9.4g have you maintained a
    strict adherence to the line by line porting method? If not what have your
    considerations when deviating from the Java.

    Scott
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Noel Lysaght
    Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:39 AM
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
    Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

    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-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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.
    Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
    To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
    Cc: lucene-net-dev@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
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
    ---------------------------------------------------------
  • Digy at Jun 29, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    Hi Scott,
    Please avoid crossposting(as I do now). Since when I reply to your eMail, it
    goes to one of the lists and thread is splitted into two.
    It may be good for announcements but not for discussions.

    DIGY

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:58 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@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
  • Moray McConnachie at Jun 30, 2011 at 8:01 am
    I'm not really clear exactly what you mean when you say:

    "a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 packages would not be
    interchangeable."

    So I find it hard to judge - I've been not full time on the list though...

    What is the proposed change to the roadmap, if any? Is that up-to-date?

    M.

    -------------------------------------
    Moray McConnachie
    Director of IT +44 1865 261 600
    Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Scott Lombard
    Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 07:57 PM
    To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org <lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org>; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org <lucene-net-user@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
    ---------------------------------------------------------

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouplucene-net-user @
categorieslucene
postedJun 29, '11 at 6:58p
activeJun 30, '11 at 4:38p
posts12
users9
websitelucene.apache.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase