lucenenet-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Mitiaguin <mitiag...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:52:14 GMT
George,
Surely it is your prerogative to try  whatever you like but may I ask a
question.  My understanding  J# and JCLA were retired after VS 2005,  so
what do you call a current version and what do you expect ?

2.9.3  Java
private final HashSet synced = new HashSet();
private Map normsCache = new HashMap();

3.0.2 Java
private final HashSet<String> synced = new HashSet<String>();
private Map<String,byte[]> normsCache = new HashMap<String,byte[]>();

I doubt any improvement may happen ( strong typed collections which
substitute  previous untyped  are  scattered in so many files/places ).

Michael

Initial port became a bottleneck when:
>
> 1) Java Lucene started to use Java features that JLCA didn't understand,
> 2) MS stopped improving and supporting JLCA, and
> 3) The Java Lucene's code size grew considerably with good chunk of
> refactoring.
>
> For #1, I would like to try a current version of JLCA.
> -- George
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
> Hi Ciaran,
>
>
>
> You are right. The bottleneck of the project is the initial port(JLCA or
> not).  If we can not find a smart way so that everyone willing to
> contribute
> can make some/all translations (not necessarily 100% complete), repeating
> the same steps will be useless.
>
>
>
>
>
> PS: While we were happily living under "incubator", PMC forced us to become
> a graduate project. Although nothing has changed since than(Lucene.Net's
> life goes that way since years), now PMC says, "you should return back to
> incubator or find another place". I think it's insulting. I lost my itch.
>
>
>
> DIGY
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ciaran Roarty [mailto:ciaran.roarty@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 8:10 AM
> To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org
> Cc: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> I don't think this conversation is over so I don't feel it requires a
>
> new email thread.
>
>
>
> In essence you are saying that everything should stay the same, am I
>
> correct? I would suggest that this is the same response I got in 2007
>
> and, as we have seen, it doesn't work.
>
>
>
> We have you to thank for Lucene.Net's existence and Digy et al have
>
> worked very hard on top of that foundation but the process is
>
> massively flawed: the JLCA conversion which you seem to want to keep
>
> is a bottleneck and stifles development.
>
>
>
> If it is agreed that the thing to do is to go back to incubation and
>
> repeat the same processes as before then I am out.
>
>
>
> Can I ask Digy if he thinks that's a good way to go?
>
>
>
> Ciaran
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Nov 2010, at 04:06, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Everyone,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rather than responding to each email, I will write up one response.  The
>
> > points is in no significant order or priority.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 1) IKVM: Since it doesn't give you source code, you end up with Java look
>
> > and fell, all the way from API to classes to exceptions.  If this is
>
> > valuable option for your need, you can do it with ease; you don't need
> the
>
> > support of ASF or Lucene developers.  Just use IKVM and off you go.  With
>
> > this option, you are now further away from .NET'nes that's being asked of
>
> > Lucene.Net, but all exiting Lucene resources (books, examples, support,
>
> > etc.) is available for you and you can have a .NET version of Lucene the
> day
>
> > Java Lucene is released.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2) Other conversion tools: Using other converter tools (beside JLCA which
> is
>
> > the one I'm familiar with) should be looked at.  Keep in mind that until
>
> > when they are tried out, and their quality is analyzed, they are just
>
> > another tools beside JLCA.  In addition, since those are different tools,
>
> > the output C# code may not be consistent with exiting Lucene.Net code.
>  If
>
> > so, this will cause issue if such a change is at the public API layer;
> the
>
> > port will no longer be backward compatible (at API level) with existing
>
> > clients.  My preference is to stick with JLCA, since I'm familiar with it
>
> > and know have written scripts to highlight where it falls short.
>  However,
> I
>
> > would like to see others try out other tools and report back.  I would be
>
> > really surprise to see any tool doing much better than JLCA because if
> such
>
> > a tool exist, there would be many ports of other Java projects.  In
> another
>
> > email, I will outline a use-case to test those other tools.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3) .NET'fying Lucene.Net:  If you really want this, just start a new
> project
>
> > at ASF or someone where else.  I really don't see Lucene.Net achieving
> this
>
> > anytime soon per reasons that I pointed out earlier and over the years on
>
> > this mailing list.  If you start such a project, it shouldn't be called
>
> > Lucene.Net because that new project will produce a C# Lucene which is no
>
> > longer compatible with existing Lucene.Net clients as the public API will
>
> > now diverge.  In addition, you will also lose, based on how deep .NET'es
> you
>
> > make your Lucene, existing available resources  about Lucene (web, books,
>
> > mailing list, etc).  You will also need good knowledge of search engines,
>
> > and the internals of Lucene to make this happen.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 4) Adding a .NET'es layer: Have a look at the list of classes and APIs
>
> > Lucene.Net has to offer (see:
>
> > http://lucene.apache.org/lucene.net/docs/2.4.0/ -- hmm, looks like I
> never
>
> > created doc for 2.9.x).  Do you plan to cover them all?  Only part of it?
>
> > Are you ready to support it?  If so, you can start such a project at ASF
> or
>
> > somewhere else.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 5) Support VS 2010: This is a minor issue (if an issue at all).  Just
> open
>
> > the existing project and VS 2010 will ask you if you want to convert it.
>
> > Personally, it's always best to support the lowest common compiler,
>
> > environment and .NET Framework.  This way, you can support a wider
> audience
>
> > as possible (even mono).  Remember, not everyone wants the source code,
> or
>
> > can use the latest compiler or IDE, most just want the release DLL.  Java
>
> > Lucene has always supported older ver. of Java till Lucene 3.0.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 6) Lucene.Net on ASF:  This is a big one.  Many corporation and
>
> > organization, big and small, will use and ship ASF software over other
> open
>
> > source software with very little, if any, reservation.  The license model
> of
>
> > ASF, the opens, brand reorganization and the process that ASF demands of
> its
>
> > project is well known and sound.  When you grab an ASF project, which has
>
> > gone through incubation and graduated, you know you are getting a
> software
>
> > which has been well vetted, is backed with a team that knows about the
>
> > software, and the team will be around to back it up and support it.  At
> ASF,
>
> > there is a established process which all graduated projects fallow.
>
> > Lucene.Net, since it graduated, has NOT stood up to this level of
> standard.
>
> > Heck, there was only 1 official release back in 2006 of Lucene 1.9 which
> was
>
> > pre-graduation.  This is why Grant has raised this issue, to send us back
>
> > into incubation or attic (retire).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 7) Committers: There are several committers, few are more dedicated and
>
> > active than others.  I was the initial and sole committer since 2004
> (even
>
> > prior to that on SourceForg.net).  This change since 2008 when we added
>
> > DIGY, Doug and Michael; they all have contributed -- they took my initial
>
> > port and cleaned up open issues.  When folks are saying there is 1
>
> > committer, I think they mean to say there is only 1 committer who has
> done
>
> > the initial ports.  Let us not forgot to give credit where it's due.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 8) Not .NET'fying Lucene.Net and line-by-line port:  I want to say few
>
> > things about this even though I pointed them earlier, but just to make it
>
> > clear.  While it is true Lucene.Net doesn't have the full fell of
> .NET'nes
>
> > (it's more like the first and second generation of C#) the fact that
>
> > Lucene.Net fallows this port model means you can post a question on Java
>
> > Lucene mailing list and everyone will know what you are talking about.
>  It
>
> > means if there is a bug in Lucene.Net, you can debug it by doing a
>
> > side-by-side run of Java and C# Lucene (no need for deep Lucene or search
>
> > engine expertise).  It means existing Lucene resources are available for
>
> > you.  It means a bug in Java Lucene also exist in Lucene.Net.  It means a
>
> > rock solid Java Lucene is what Lucene.Net will be.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 9) Back to incubation:  The reason to go back to incubation is mainly to
>
> > make sure the ASF brand that a graduated ASF project is stamped with,
> holds
>
> > to ASF's core.  As is, since Lucene.Net was prompted into graduation, has
>
> > failed on this front.  As I pointed out earlier, there hasn't been any
>
> > official release other than the one I did way back in 2006 for 1.9.
> Having
>
> > ASF to offer Lucene.Net as a "graduated" and "stable" project does
> injustice
>
> > to existing graduated ASF projects not to mention the brand ASF.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 10) Comparing this project to X:  You can look hard and deep to find
> reason
>
> > why Lucene.Net isn't as successful as project X.  My take on it is,
> unlike
>
> > other most successful open source projects, on ASF or somewhere else,
>
> > Lucene.Net has NO active and continues committers who actually get paid
> to
>
> > work on it.  Until when we have a sponsoring entity, any cycles or effort
>
> > spent on this project by anyone is going to be an after though even if
> you
>
> > are a dedicated user who is in need of Lucene.Net -- you will most likely
>
> > commit a fix or a port to mainly get your need done.  This is also true
> for
>
> > a sponsoring entity, but the sponsoring entity has a broader need.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 11) Lucene contrib:  I don't know how many folks know this, but I also
>
> > ported a number of Java Lucene contrib codes.  Check the ported list:
>
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/lucene.net/trunk/C%23/contrib/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So where do we go from here?   Unless if there are further discussions or
>
> > questions, I suggest we put our energy and effort on getting actual
> results
>
> > done.  To do so, I will start a new email thread on this subject sometime
>
> > tomorrow.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -- George
>
> >
>
>
>

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