lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Jordan <robe...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] VOTE: .NET 2.0 Framework Support After Apache Lucene.Net 2.9.4
Date Wed, 11 May 2011 16:25:35 GMT
[0]

On 11.05.2011 17:54, Simone Chiaretta 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

These are mainly server frameworks. Since Lucene.Net is perfectly
suitable for desktop applications, forcing a .NET 4 dependency
is too early. Don't forget this target.

Robert

>
> 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
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>



Mime
View raw message