lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Date Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:37:19 GMT
"strict adherence to the line by line porting method"? Of course not.
But having similar looking code is good if you want to port *manually*.
See for ex,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12483888/LUCENE-3234.patch
.
Porting that patch to Lucene.Net was very easy just because of this.

I don't think I have strict or objective rules for porting.
While looking at a patch in Java, if I can find out what to do in Lucene.Net
easily, that is enough.

I used some lamdas too just to make the code more similar to the java
version. For ex,
compare the java code 

cache = new FilterCache<DocIdSet>(deletesMode) {
      @Override
      public DocIdSet mergeDeletes(final IndexReader r, final DocIdSet
docIdSet) {
        return new FilteredDocIdSet(docIdSet) {
          @Override
          protected boolean match(int docID) {
            return !r.isDeleted(docID);
          }
        };
      }
    };

with the code in comment(17/May/11) in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-412

I am not against idiomatic port if we can keep up with the progress of
Lucene.Java.
But for now, I'll stick to line-by-line port.

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:47 PM
To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?

Ok, here is a better question.  Digy in the 2.9.4g have you maintained a
strict adherence to the line by line porting method?  If not what have your
considerations when deviating from the Java. 

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Lysaght [mailto:lysaghtn@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 5:39 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has
> outlined
> below.
> 
> If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose out
> on
> the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make.
> It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search,  a  deep
> knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the
> knowledge
> will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be give.
> 
> When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it has
> moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to abandoning
> a
> line by line port.
> By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and .NET
> goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the moment);
> but
> leave the core of the project on a line by line port.
> 
> Just my tu-pence worth.
> 
> Kind Regards
> Noel
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moray McConnachie
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the
> history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, all
> the understanding of search, all the new features come from the Lucene
> Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust them
> to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and to
> have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on.
> 
> Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET
> who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot more
> value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll take
> a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is significantly
> diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at what
> stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all?
> 
> At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to continue,
> and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction.
> 
> So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be
> sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using Lucene
> in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. So
> let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general structure
> close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance
> set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other methods
> and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same
> file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of similarity,
> with good documentation and help being available from the Java
> community.
> 
> Yours,
> Moray
> -------------------------------------
> Moray McConnachie
> Director of IT    +44 1865 261 600
> Oxford Analytica  http://www.oxan.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@thermofisher.com]
> Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> This is has been discussed many times.
> Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a
> line-by-line port.  It ceases to be Lucene.
> 
> - Neal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
> 
> 
> 
> After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net
> 2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a
> line-by-line port.  Starting with Digy's excellent work on the
> conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2
> packages would not be interchangeable.  So faster turnaround from a java
> release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will have to wait
> until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code base.
> 
> 
> 
> My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port?
> Anyone have a comment?
> 
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 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