The #1 problem with Lucene is that it doesn't implement IDisposable, which make it _very_ awkward to use in .NET
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Alex Thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > I think a better pattern than partial classes would be extension methods > (like the way LINQ works with IEnumerable). That way the extensions could > be > in a separate assembly but appear seamless with the core class. > > I don't like the name Lucere. I think it's too close and will create > confusion. It's so close I wonder if the ASF will have something to say > about it. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Lucere project announcement > > There is benefit to making partial classes if we want to extend, but that > adds complexity to the conversion and doesn't do one thing to help us get > Lucene.Net into more native .net constructs > > I personally don't even know enough about lucene yet to know where people > would want to extend it. > > Partial classes I think will be a good move once we have a good system in > place to convert java to .net and show that we are keeping pace > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Mateja <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:20:04 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Lucere project announcement > > I'm a bit concerned that there's going to be a fragmentation of effort > surrounding Lucene.Net, Lucere, and Aimee, LINQ to Lucene ( > http://linqtolucene.codeplex.com/, though this appears to be dead) causing > more confusion than not. I do agree that initially, Lucene.Net should > remain a line by line port. As much as the Java idioms pulled into > Lucene.Net can be frustrating to work with in the context of standard .Net > development, I think it's more important to have something that works now, > and works exactly the same as the base Lucene. As discussed ad nauseum in > other forums this has several key benefits. > > That said, I do long for the elegance of recent .Net language constructs > and > framework features. I've heard discussion of trying to build a .Net > "layer" > on top of Lucene.Net. Having dug into the Lucene.Net code a bit, I'd have > to say that this will not be an easy task. I'd wager that quite a bit of > the desired .Net-ification of Lucene.Net will result from better automated > conversion methods, which would really hinge on the direction taken by the > Lucene.Net project, not Lucere. > > One interesting direction to take, might be to transition some of the core > classes in Lucene.Net into partial classes, allowing additional additional > class tooling outside of the Lucene.Net core project. This is perhaps a > naive suggestion, so if anyone has already considered this route, let me > know. > > Peter Mateja > [email protected] > > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Troy Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > > > The recent discussions on this mailing list have shown a few things to > > be > > true: > > > > - Lucene.Net is definitely still a thriving project with strong > >leadership represented by George and DIGY > > - The community surrounding the project is vocal, vibrant and filled > >with ideas and motivation to help > > - There is a strong interest in seeing Lucene.Net continue as a > >line-by-line port of Java Lucene: > > - It's faster and more manageable to make releases because code can > >be automatically converted > > - Retains all the excellence of the Java Lucene project > > - Provides end users with a wealth of existing knowledge and support > >surrounding the Java Lucene project > > - There is a strong interest in have a more ".Net style" port of > >Lucene > > - Many users feel using the Java-idiomatic API is unwieldy > > - There is a desire to see the code take advantage of valuable .Net > >framework features that do not exist in Java > > - Performance can be improve on the .NET runtime by refactoring > > > > I'm very glad to see George has picked up the ball to keep Lucene.Net > > going and applaud his commitment to keeping the project focused on > > it's stated goals: a line-by-line port of Java Lucene that releases in > > sync the main project. > > > > I'm also glad to see that a number of people have started contributing > > in meaningful ways to the Lucene.Net project, working through the > > action list George posted a few days ago. I would like to > > optimistically think that crisis is well on it's way to being averted. > > > > I think this is a good sign that Lucene.Net will remain a vital and > > active project as part of the ASF. > > > > With that said, I'd like to announce Lucere, a new Lucene-based .NET > > project. > > > > The goal of Lucere is to create a "conceptual port" of Lucene for .NET > > as contrasted with the current "syntactic port" approach taken by > > Lucene.Net. We will start by creating a ground-up re-write of the > > current feature set of Java Lucene 3.0.2 that is optimized for .NET. > > This is a non-trivial task and may cause our initial release cycle to > > be slow. Beyond that we will be spending a certain amount of time > > upfront to design the API and architecture. While building our initial > > architecture and design we want to take into consideration the many > > different ideas that our community has to offer, producing what will > > hopefully be a full featured, flexible library that integrates well > > into a variety of kinds of applications. > > > > For more information, please see the project site at: > > > > http://lucere.codeplex.com > > > > We hope that the next few weeks will represent a lively discussion > > from members of the Lucene.Net community about the idea of a new > > project, our goals and the design and architecture of Lucere. In order > > to keep discussion focused for both projects, please consider joining > > the Lucere mailing list by sending a quick email to: > > > > [email protected] <lucere%[email protected]> > > lucere+<lucere%[email protected]<lucere%[email protected]> > > > > > > Or, if you'd rather not use email, feel free to visit the discussion > > forums on the project site at: > > > > http://lucere.codeplex.com/discussions > > > > Hopefully there's enough interest in both concepts such that both > > projects may continue to move forward and thrive. We fully intend to > > have our cake and eat it too. :) > > > > Thanks, > > Troy > > > >
