lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Hoffman <>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Tue, 10 May 2011 23:19:41 GMT
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 [] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4

In this case I must vote


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 McConnachie
Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
Oxford Analytica

----- Original Message -----
From: Troy Howard []
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:26 PM
To: <>;
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..


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Granroth, Neal V.
<> 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 []
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:41 PM
> To:; 
> 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
> | | Skype: aaron.l.powell | 
> MSN:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Howard []
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:05 AM
> To:; 
> 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


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

View raw message