lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard Wilde" <rich...@wildesoft.net>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Wed, 11 May 2011 15:42:23 GMT
Correct "The market is clearly demanding products and support for older
systems." But currently as the vote goes it's a minority...


-----Original Message-----
From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com] 
Sent: 11 May 2011 15:16
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4

That's a fantasyland perceptive.  In the real world there are many, huge
organizations (the clients to whom we sell various products, including one
optional package that incorporates Lucene.NET) who tie themselves to older
versions (Windows95 is the oldest in-production platform of which I'm
aware). The market is clearly demanding products and support for older
systems.
 
- Neal

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hoffman [mailto:rhoffman@tntp.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 6:20 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4

I feel like if you're in an org that is limiting you to be on .NET2 / CLR2,
then guess what, you're stuck with the latest Lucene.NET for CLR2.  Too bad.
That latest release obviously is working fine for you right now, otherwise
why did those business decisions make that a dependency in the first place.
You're also missing out on countless other libraries who have shifted to
.NET 4, which you are stuck on the latest CLR2 versions of.  The rest of the
world has moved on, and guess what, we don't need to be held back because
there are a few people left behind. 

Ryan Hoffman

-----Original Message-----
From: Moray McConnachie [mailto:mmcconna@oxford-analytica.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:15 AM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4

In this case I must vote

[0] 

Shifting to 4.0 isn't that great for those of us who like Neal have more
complex production platform issues to consider - and in the wonderful world
of business decisions, Lucene and its features may play only a small part.

I think we should probably have run two votes:

a) discontinue support for 2.0
b) should we standardise on 3.5 or 4.0

I've not run into any awkward build issues on different versions of 3.5, but
it seems quite likely the same problem if it exists for 3.5 will also come
to be true for 4.0 after a few service packs.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:26 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: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache
Lucene.Net 2.9.4

Yes, if you can't use a later framework, then you won't get the benefits
that come with that. One of the benefits that you may not get is the latest
version of the code with the least bugs. These are all factors that a
organization must take into account when considering such policies. It's a
tough choice to make, but even the most conservative organizations need to
move forward at some point. This is the same issue that we all suffered
through moving from 1.1 to 2.0...
Or moving from 32bit to 64bit... etc.

If there is a real technical limitation (as opposed to a 'business
decision/policy'), then the best option is to branch from a previous
2.0 compatible revision, and update the code to resolve whatever issues you
are encountering. Backporting from 3.5/4.0 code to 2.0 code is not that
difficult, especially when we have Mono available to work from. Also, 2.9.4
(2.0 compatible) should have all the features of 2.9.4g (4.0 compatible)...
That is accomplished by setting the target framework to 2.0, and using Mono
implementations of HashSet/SortedSet in the SupportClass.cs. So, until we
get to Lucene.Net 3.X (next version after 2.9.4), there will be support for
2.0 framework for all changes/features.


For those with a situation similar to Neal's, I would consider option [0] in
the vote. This option proposes maintaining 2.0 compatibility with
patches/ifdef blocks, but still considering 4.0 as the primary target
framework. This seems like it would be ideal for those stuck with
limitations about framework support. It is unfortunately, the option that
requires the most amount of coding work and the most code complexity.

In general, I don't think we should consider targeting 3.5. One of the
problems with 3.5 compatibility is that depending on what version of
3.5 you have (service packs, etc) you may get different results (eg, can't
compile with certain builds). So if we say "3.5" is our target
-- which 3.5? 4.0 may end up the same, but at the moment, it doesn't have
this problem.


Perhaps we should work up a "For the boss" page which explains, in detail,
the cost/benefit analysis of choosing a version of Lucene.Net (and it's
associated framework dependencies). This will assist folks who are trying to
justify a particular perspective (either for/against using a particular
version). Benchmarks, known bugs/bug fixes/features list, etc..


Thanks,
Troy


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<neal.granroth@thermofisher.com> wrote:
> That only works if you are *allowed* to deploy a new or updated .NET
framework on the target system, which is not always true.
>
> But the problem is not really about deployment it is really more for those
of us who must compile from source and who are not permitted to upgrade our
development toolset.
>
> - Neal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Powell [mailto:me@aaron-powell.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; 
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After 
> Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
>
> +1
>
> PS: If you are supporting .NET 3.5 then you get .NET 2.0 support 
> anyway, you just have to bin-deploy the .NET 3.5 dependencies 
> (System.Core, etc) since they are all the same CLR
>
> Aaron Powell
> MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member | 
> FunnelWeb Team Member
>
> http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | 
> MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; 
> lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache 
> Lucene.Net 2.9.4
>
> All,
>
> Please cast your votes regarding the topic of .Net Framework support.
>
> The question on the table is:
>
> Should Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4 be the last release which supports the .Net
2.0 Framework?
>
> Some options are:
>
> [+1] - Yes, move forward to the latest .Net Framework version, and drop
support for 2.0 completely. New features and performance are more important
than backwards compatibility.
> [0] - Yes, focus on the latest .Net Framework, but also include patches
and/or preprocessor directives and conditional compilation blocks to include
support for 2.0 when needed. New features, performance, and backwards
compatibility are all equally important and it's worth the additional
complexity and coding work to meet all of those goals.
> [-1] No, .Net Framework 2.0 should remain our target platform. Backwards
compatibility is more important than new features and performance.
>
>
> This vote is not limited to the Apache Lucene.Net IPMC. All
users/contributors/committers/mailing list lurkers are welcome to cast their
votes with an equal weight. This has been cross posted to both the dev and
user mailing lists.
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>

---------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message