Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of paige.john@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.205 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=R5la1q2C7cme4jhyKdVoABHQIaApklAtHh9p9yRXp7UYqoNt+xoerwYCKHnliMjswyBK7FZhUYFC1qRoKG9Dois9qLC8KAi6MyKHngHcs89P7+2edQlTlvxw+YqDtWRJAqZNyFSLN6l7jcqyF/+j8wHMjjQbRHTviUrWQQ3OBjc=
Message-ID: <40d07eb40505250905a373841@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:05:48 -0400
From: John Paige <paige.john@gmail.com>
Reply-To: John Paige <paige.john@gmail.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: lucene / clucene
In-Reply-To: <86F8CAB6-61F5-4D18-948F-C3793AB90662@ehatchersolutions.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <40d07eb405052408477fc3d369@mail.gmail.com>
	 <86F8CAB6-61F5-4D18-948F-C3793AB90662@ehatchersolutions.com>

I have looked at Lucene4C, it looks to me that it is in a very early
stage of devlopment. There are not any releases yet.
Does anyone have any idea when the first official release is going to be ou=
t?

Thanks,
John

On 5/24/05, Erik Hatcher <erik@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> John,
>=20
> There are a couple of other options beyond CLucene.  There is also
> Lucene4C which is now being developed in the Apache Incubator
> (incubator.apache.org) and using a GCJ'd version of Lucene.  The Java
> version of Lucene has been integrated into PyLucene using the Java ->
> GCJ -> SWIG.
>=20
>      Erik
>=20
> On May 24, 2005, at 11:47 AM, John Paige wrote:
>=20
> > Hi,
> >    I have heard good reviews about lucene, since we use C++ interface,
> > I discarded the idea of using lucene. Recently, I came across
> > "clucene", lucene written in C++.
> >
> > clucene is not as well-supported as lucene, so I am not sure if I
> > should go for it. Does anyone has used clucene here? Any comments on
> > effictiveness, support on clucene are highly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
>=20
>