lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <>
Subject RE: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject
Date Wed, 26 May 2010 23:36:25 GMT

Considering the fact that Lucy is not planning on complementing Lucene's
API, while CLucene's goal is to be a one-by-one port, I would say no
relationship. Also, CLucene is written in C++ and not C.

Re. Sphinx - I'm not familiar enough with it to really comment on this, but
I'd assume this is more of a Lucene vs Sphinx question. Do the prons and
cons, throw in some benchmarks, and then give CLucene a couple of extra
points for being cross-platform, and 5-10 times faster than the equivallent
Lucene version. I had a quick look, and it seems like Lucene is much more
scalable (esp. considering the latest developments) and some even claim that
"Lucene performance is unmatched".

Also, unless a restrictive license isn't a show stopper for you, Sphinx is
released under GPL.


-----Original Message-----
From: Earwin Burrfoot [] 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject

I wonder, what's going to be the relationship between this and Lucy?
Also, how do both of them compare to Sphinx?

2010/5/27 Itamar Syn-Hershko <>:
> Ryan, thanks. I understand, and obviously if the PMC will think the 
> same this is what we'll be doing.
> Unfortunately, I haven't heard from the PMC yet, and I'm not sure 
> where this is going exactly. If the proposal is what keeping this from 
> being discussed, do let me know. Otherwise, I'm hoping someone with 
> good knowledge of this process could respond and help us move this 
> forward. I can be contacted privately if needed.
> Itamar.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan McKinley []
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject
> Thanks Itamar-
> Apologies since the last email is not very clear...   Not speaking as 
> the PMC, my feeling is that for this an incubation process will be 
> needed.  With Apache, the projects are more about the community then 
> the code -- since there exists a CLucene community with its own 
> culture etc, i think the incubation process makes sense (that is the 
> whole point of the incubator - in my opinion)  For incubation, CLucene 
> would need a champion
> again, just throwing it out there, and *not* speaking as the PMC.
> ryan
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 
> <>
> wrote:
>> Ryan,
>> I'm not familiar with the Apache way of doing things. It is my
> understanding
>> that if the invitation is initiated by the PMC itself, no incubation
> process
>> nor a champion are required. Considering CLucene's age and proven
> stability,
>> I was hoping we could go that route. If we need a PMC member as a
> champion,
>> may this be a call for one.
>> Considering CLucene is targetting a very different users base than 
>> Lucene is, I don't see how it can possibly be a distraction. On the 
>> countrary - many optimizations done in CLucene back in the old days 
>> were later adapted by Lucene itself, and I'm sure this will continue. 
>> Also, I believe CLucene has a great part in promoting Lucene, 
>> especially among non-Java
> developers.
>> So, I don't see how CLucene is a moot point more than Lucene.Net for
> example
>> has ever been.
>> I would love to be working with anyone to get this process properly
> defined
>> and started. A proposal is being worked on.
>> Itamar.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ryan McKinley []
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 10:51 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Adding CLucene as a Lucene subproject
>> Having skimmed most of the thread...
>> It seems the question of if CLucene should be a sub-project may be
> premature
>> considering that it would really need someone in the PMC to champion 
>> it -- do the real work to make it happen.
>> I can see many ways this could be a good addition to lucene land, I 
>> can
> also
>> see many ways that it may just be a distraction.  Unless someone 
>> actually can work with them, it is a moot point.
>> ryan
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko 
>> <>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Following a recent discussion with Otis, I would like to request for 
>>> the CLucene project to join the ASF, as a sub-project of Lucene.
>>> CLucene is an important port of Lucene, and is being used very 
>>> widely for a few years now. The project aims to be attractive to 
>>> people who like to use Lucene but wants to increase performance or 
>>> reduce the overheads of using a JVM, for C++ developers; and 
>>> eventually for users of various high-level or scripting languages.
>>> We are currently hosting on SourceForge; our latest release conforms 
>>> to Java Lucene 1.9.1, but the master branch in our git repository 
>>> works with 2.3.2 indexes, and is being worked on for a while now. 
>>> More info is available in our website 
>>> ( and project page
>>> CLucene is currently released under the LGPL and the Apache 2.0 
>>> licenses (dual). If this needs changing, we will need some legal 
>>> help to do that correctly.
>>> Please advise on how to pursue this, and what needs to be done from 
>>> our
>> end.
>>> This move is very important to us, and could also benefit the Lucene 
>>> community. Hopefully, we could make this happen.
>>> Itamar.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For 
>> additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For 
>> additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For 
> additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For 
> additional commands, e-mail:

Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional
commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message