lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Next sync release Lucene.net
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:14:22 GMT
FWIW, we are already on github (https://github.com/apache/lucenenet) and
there's actually a lot of interesting work to do that is not porting
related. I mentioned quite a bit of it in my talk.

--

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

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Simone Chiaretta <
simone.chiaretta@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I said many times already, the main reason why nobody contributes to
> lucene.net is that porting code is not sexy. Actually is kind of boring.
> I'm talking as a normal developer not involved in any big development.
>
> Indeed it would be polite for ayende or Microsoft to contribute back to
> the project.
>
> Also moving to Github and getting away from the bureaucracy of the apache
> foundation might help, but we had this discussion long time ago.
>
> Simone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Itamar Syn-Hershko" <itamar@code972.com>
> Sent: ‎26/‎01/‎2016 15:20
> To: "user@lucenenet.apache.org" <user@lucenenet.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net
>
> As with all OSS projects, In the end of day it really boils down to the
> community. How big it is, and how active it is.
>
> I know for a fact Lucene.NET has a vast amount of users, including big
> projects you all know (Nuget, RavenDB, Umbraco, and more) and in big
> companies (several teams in Microsoft are using and also have contributed
> code, for example). But the amount of active participants is very small,
> and this is the main reason why we haven't made a release lately.
>
> Launching a new project that will allow to run Java Lucene via any CLR
> wrapper for Java will run into the exact same issues. All code requires
> maintenance.
>
> In fact, I spoke about exactly that a few months ago at .NET Fringe
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhRwbiwgv0
>
> We are making good progress and will eventually get to a 4.8 release, but
> without more help from the community it will take us some time to get
> there. And as I mentioned in the video, I find it utterly ridiculous that
> companies are making money out of this OSS project for years now and don't
> contribute back a single dime (or man hours). This, for sure, is a way to
> make a project die.
>
> My $0.02.
>
> --
>
> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> Lucene.NET committer and PMC member
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Bart Czernicki <
> Bartosz.Czernicki@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > There definitely is a need for local in-process search technology that is
> > not REST based.  .NET developers have plenty of options there: Solr,
> > ElasticSearch, Azure Search (on MSFT cloud).  The network latency, https
> > protocol and serialization/deserialization together are never going to be
> > faster than in-process search.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lucene 4.x has some great improvements in search and faceting that would
> > be great to have.  I see this request come up a lot.
> >
> >
> >
> > [image: Image] <http://azure.microsoft.com/>
> >
> > *  Bart Czernicki*
> >
> >   Cloud Solution Architect | Azure SaaS ISV Solutions
> >
> >   609.519.2060 | baczerni@microsoft.com | Why Azure?
> > <http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/overview/case-studies/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Michael D Gorsich [mailto:gorsichm@dteenergy.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:50 AM
> > *To:* user@lucenenet.apache.org
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: Next sync release Lucene.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Could it be it works so well there just isn't much broad-based need for
> > change? Don't the newer changes to Lucene tend to cover more specialized
> > needs, with correspondingly fewer developers willing to work on it, or
> > needing the functions?
> >
> > I know for our org's needs Lucene 3.0.3 seems perfect as-is.
> >
> >
> > *Michael Gorsich Senior Developer, DTE Energy - ITS*
> > 734.586.1531 (Fermi 2)
> > gorsichm@dteenergy.com
> >
> >
> > [image: Inactive hide details for "Michael O'Shea" ---2016.01.26
> > 08:28:28---I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a content
> post-proce]"Michael
> > O'Shea" ---2016.01.26 08:28:28---I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a
> > content post-processing system on an Azure worker process.
> >
> > From: "Michael O'Shea" <michael.a.oshea@gmail.com>
> > To: "user@lucenenet.apache.org" <user@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > Date: 2016.01.26 08:28
> > Subject: Re: Next sync release Lucene.net
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I managed to integrate Lucene.Net into a content post-processing system
> on
> > an Azure worker process.
> >
> > I would be sad to see Lucene.Net go but it is true that there seems to be
> > very little uptake for the project. Weird.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatcher@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Or via HTTP?  Solr! :)
> > >
> > > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 06:08, Allan, Brad (Bracknell) <
> > Brad.Allan@Fiserv.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This question sparked a thought....
> > > > I wonder if it's time to think about an alternate way to make Lucene
> > > available to the .NET community - some sort of JNI wrapper?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nimesh Dhruve [mailto:nimesh@chiwater.com <nimesh@chiwater.com
> >]
> > > > Sent: 25 January 2016 18:17
> > > > To: user@lucenenet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Next sync release Lucene.net
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am wondering if there is any active development for Lucene.net
> going
> > > on to keep it sync with Java Lucene and if so when is the next release
> > for
> > > Lucene.net planned?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Nimesh
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > CheckFree Solutions Limited (trading as Fiserv)
> > > > Registered Office: Eversheds House, 70 Great Bridgewater Street,
> > > Manchester, M15 ES
> > > > Registered in England: No. 2694333
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message