Mailing-List: contact user-help@lucy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@lucy.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=jQHYDPshaCS/qeTZkYk+DKANCcqLOdKs5RfBVwvkfrbOn2Dtf4thFLe134HO8DD9Kh0siw5cX6Gk825kLV9zOPU1wKWE9AxxF72Rtgdl6YhuVRSxTSq/BBo4CXFcgSFpBKw/AEq2Kj3HgUbwG/nWNYHziIqf2Ahxf3x4o3e6gTo=;
References: <1353587724.42299.YahooMailNeo@web124902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <CAFAN8vybQ9z6pNeOXkxs+nsOh+_q1VyeJoqzKqsF4Wh2scOVhQ@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <1353823992.15684.YahooMailNeo@web124905.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:13:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Rayne Olivetti <rayneolivetti@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Rayne Olivetti <rayneolivetti@yahoo.com>
To: Nathan Kurz <nate@verse.com>,
  "user@lucy.apache.org" <user@lucy.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [lucy-user] Using Lucy directly from C

The reason for me to seek a C/C++ alternative for Lucene very simple: perfo=
rmance (especially memory) and dependencies (no Java on many embedded syste=
ms).=0A=0AThis sounds like problem you need to solve anyway first, if you w=
ant people to write bindings for other languages.=0AUnless there is a compl=
ete C API, I personally would rather stick to swig bindings of clucene.=0A=
=0AAnd it behooves me to say that Lucy is trying to solve other problems (a=
 toy-swig project which you expect people to learn to use in order to wrap =
your one, single library) that it's rather supposed to solve in the first p=
lace.=0AHere's an excerpt from Lucy FAQ:=0A=0AWhy don't you use Swig?=0AA m=
ajor design goal of Lucy is to present bindings which are as idiomatic as p=
ossible so that our users feel as though they are programming in their nati=
ve language and not in C. Swig is a great tool, but it does not offer suppo=
rt for many of the features which make Lucy so user friendly: subclassing, =
named parameters, default argument values, etc.=0AThese excuses downright w=
rong. Surely SWIG handles inheritance, default arguments, and named paramet=
ers (docstring features for python) for languages that support them. If you=
r favorite, killer feature X is missing for your apparently-favorite-langua=
ge Perl, why don't you just send a patch to Swig instead of re-inventing th=
e wheel? And I should and add Swig is a BIG wheel.=0AAnd mind you, not many=
 languages support those features.=0A=0AAnd okay, I get that you love Perl,=
 and you probably don't want to dig into the giant called Swig just to impl=
ement a single feature you like. But please understand that Perl is obsolet=
e to many people today, and by not implementing a complete C API, you're no=
t letting people to use Swig (or whatever tool the language X supports for =
wrapping C code) at their option.=0A=0ALast but not least, "loose C port" i=
mplies it can be used via C, which led me to this project.=A0In it's curren=
t form, Lucy mainly looks like a Perl port of Lucene, boosted with some C c=
ode.=0A=0ALucy is a project at it's infancy, so I expect many things to cha=
nge in the future.=0ABut for now, I'm going with clucene+swig.=0A=0A=0A----=
- Original Message -----=0AFrom: Nathan Kurz <nate@verse.com>=0ATo: user@lu=
cy.apache.org; Rayne Olivetti <rayneolivetti@yahoo.com>=0ACc: =0ASent: Frid=
ay, November 23, 2012 2:33 AM=0ASubject: Re: [lucy-user] Using Lucy directl=
y from C=0A=0AOn Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:35 AM, Rayne Olivetti <rayneolivett=
i@yahoo.com> wrote:=0A> I'm well aware of the purpose of Lucy, but is it no=
t possible to use it directly from C? I can't find any documents regarding =
this, and the INSTALL file says "Currently it is available via Perl binding=
s.", which almost suggests "you're on your own if you're going to use Lucy =
from C" (and this sounds quite awkward for a C library).=0A>=0A> I'm also t=
rying to write Go bindings (which is normally done via cgo, which allows Go=
 code to directly call C functions), and using cgo doesn't require any of t=
he binding magics that ships with Lucy --it works best with a plain, old C =
API.=0A=0AThere is not yet a published C API.=A0=A0 There is a strong desir=
e to have=0Aone, but it's yet to be a top priority.=A0 It will probably sta=
y that=0Away until someone shows up on the mailing list with a clear need a=
nd=0Athe willingness and ability to help work on it. :)=0A=0AThe difficulty=
 is that host languages are integral to the way Lucy=0Aworks, and some smal=
l but crucial pieces are implemented only in the=0Ahost language.=A0 There'=
s been considerable interest in other languages,=0Abut right now Perl is th=
e only one fully supported.=0A=0AHere's a little more background:=0Ahttp://=
lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Release-date-and-language-bindings-td676033.htm=
l=0A=0A--nate