lucene-lucene-net-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:28:02 GMT

Any reason we can't continue this g branch and make it more and more .net like? I was thinking
about what we've expressed at goals - we want a line by line port - it's easy to maintain
parity with java and easy to compare. We also want a more .NET version - the g branch gets
this started - although it's not as .Net as people want (I think). 

 

What if we used the g branch as our .Net version and continued to make it more .Net like?
and kept the trunk as the line by line? The G branch seems like a good start to the more .Net
version anyway - we might as well build off of that?

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------- > From: digydigy@gmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:45:23 +0200 > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards
and 2.9.4g > > > but I guess the future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is
becoming > more .NET like > > My intention while I was creating that branch was just
to make 2.9.4 a > little bit more .Net like(+ maybe some performance). > I used many
codes from 3.0.3 Java. So it is somewhere between 2.9.4 & 3.0.3 > But I didn't think
it as a separate branch to evolve on its own path. It > is(or I think it is) the final
version of 2.9 > > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher
Currens [mailto:currens.chris@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:20 PM >
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject:
Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > One of the benefits of moving forward
with the conversion of the Java > Lucene, is that they're using more recent versions of
Java that support > things like generics and enums, so the direct port is getting more
and more > like .NET, though not in all respects of course. I'm of the mind, though, >
that one of the larger annoyances, Iterables, should be converted to > Enumerables in the
direct port. It makes it a pain to use it in .NET > without it inheriting from IEnumerable,
since it can't be used in a foreach > loop or with linq. Also, since the direct port isn't
perfect anyway, it > seems a port of the IDEA of iterating would be more in the spirit
of what > we're trying to accomplish, since the code would pretty much be the same, >
just with different method names. > > I sort of got off topic there for a second, but
I guess the future of > 2.9.4g depends on the extent that it is becoming more .NET like.
> Obviously, while java is starting to use similar constructs that we have > in .NET,
it will never be perfect. Admittedly, I haven't looked at 2.9.4g > in a little while, so
I'm not sure how much it now differs from 3.x, since > there's a relatively large change
there already. > > Thanks, > Christopher > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM,
Prescott Nasser > wrote: > > > > > That's a great question - I know a lot
of people like the generics, and I > > don't really want it to disappear. I'd like to
keep it in parity with the > > trunk. But I know we also have a goal of making Lucene.Net
more .Net like > > (further than 2.9.4g), and I don't know how that fits in. We are
a pretty > > small community and I know everyone has some pretty busy schedules so it
> > takes us considerable time to make big progress. Trying to keep three > >
different code bases probably isn't the right way to go. > > > > > > >
> > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:02:03 +1100 > > > From: mitiaguin@gmail.com >
> > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net
3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > > > > > I was browsing "Roadmap" emails from November
in Lucene developer list. > > It > > > remains unclear in what state Lucene
3 porting is , but my question more > > > about 2.9.4g . > > > Is it kind
of experimental dead end variation of 2.9.4 with generics ? > Am > > > I right
in classifying it as more .Net like 2.9.4 which is unrelated to > > > roadmap Lucene
3 porting effort. > > ----- > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1901
/ Virus Database: 2109/4708 - Release Date: 12/28/11 > 		 	   		  
Mime
View raw message