lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nic Wise <n...@fastchicken.co.nz>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Wed, 11 May 2011 16:09:07 GMT
+1 on that.

var is .NET 3.5, and I think thats a good base framework to target.
4.0 is a little new for wide usage (remember, this is a library...).
Maube so 2.9.4 as the final, stable 2.0 release, and then use either
3.5 or 4.0 for whatever the next one is (Lucene 3.x?)

.NET 2, however, shouldn't really be an option

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:54, Simone Chiaretta
<simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to point out that the "keep the lowest common
> denominator" approach is among the reasons that killed the "old" Lucene.NET.
>
> I don't see a reason why we should stay on .NET 2 because there are
> companies that cannot migrate.
> NH 3 is just .NET 4, MVC 3 is just .NET 4, EF v4 is just .NET 4, Umbraco
> v4.6+ is just .NET 4
>
> If someone is still stuck on .NET 2.0, will still be able to use the latest
> version that has been released: there must be a moment where older version
> are discontinued.
> Furthermore, if someone is on .NET 2.0, chances are that he will be just
> maintaining and old product, not doing new developments on it, so will
> probably won't upgrade to Lucene.NET 3 anyway.
>
> Simone
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Richard Wilde <richard@wildesoft.net>wrote:
>
>> 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
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simone Chiaretta
> Microsoft MVP ASP.NET - ASPInsider
> Blog: http://codeclimber.net.nz
> RSS: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/codeclimber
> twitter: @simonech
>
> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
> "Life is short, play hard"
>



-- 
Nic Wise
t.  +44 7788 592 806 | @fastchicken | http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicwise
b. http://www.fastchicken.co.nz/ | http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicwise

mobileAgent (for FreeAgent): get your accounts in your pocket.
http://goo.gl/IuBU
Trip Wallet: Keep track of your budget on the go: http://goo.gl/ePhKa
London Bike App: Find the nearest Boris Bike, and get riding! http://goo.gl/Icp2

Mime
View raw message