Mailing-List: contact user-help@lucenenet.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.50 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: itamar.synhershko@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAd_LBJFZ-3Y3f4Sc=AT=KnNiJTG0FG645=Rt4abnYhDpS=K2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAd_LBJFZ-3Y3f4Sc=AT=KnNiJTG0FG645=Rt4abnYhDpS=K2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 14:47:45 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAHTr4Zvb_Leon1OPJa5NmM4YTOhCWwuKA65q8-rk_WRzhMwf8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene.net vs Lucene with IKVM
From: Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
Cc: "dev@lucenenet.apache.org" <dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d90b5e49567050e56b50c

--047d7b5d90b5e49567050e56b50c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It robs us of many optimization opportunities on the CLR. Java Lucene
compiled using IKVM will not perform as well as a native port. Think
async/await, BCL data structures, different GC considerations (LOH for
example), etc. There's also the issue of supporting PCL, Mono, Mobile and
Azure natively. Just to name a few.

I've had a chat with the lead developer of IKVM and promised to run an IKVM
version head to head with the native port once we are done.

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Lucene.NET committer and PMC member

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Omri Suissa <omri.suissa@diffdoof.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It looks like it takes a lot of time to manually port Lucene to .net (still
> in version 3), why not using ikvm to port (at least as a base line and
> improve from there)?
>
>
> What are the disadvantages of ikvm in this case?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Omri
>

--047d7b5d90b5e49567050e56b50c--