For the sake of continued conversation, Scott could you define what you mean by line-by-line port vs non-line-by-line port since technically your the thread starter?
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a Lucene.Net user I wouldn't care whether it is line-by-line port or > not. > > But as a contributer, I would prefer a parallel code that makes the life > easier for manual ports of new releases(until this process is automated) > > PS: I presume no one thinks of functional or index-level incompatibility. > > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granr...@thermofisher.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:47 PM > To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > This is has been discussed many times. > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a > line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene. > > - Neal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardena...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > > After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net 2.0 > to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a line-by-line > port. Starting with Digy's excellent work on the conversion to generics a > priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 packages would not be > interchangeable. So faster turnaround from a java release won't matter to > non line-by-line users they will have to wait until the updates are made to > the non line-by-line code base. > > > > My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port? Anyone > have a comment? > > > > Scott > > > > > > > >
