Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this is our contribution report for the past 5 years.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-2Q AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-1&issue Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:aye...@ayende.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? As someone from the nhibernate project We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it We have mire features, less bugs and better code base Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58 To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am curious with people who hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate users? -r On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <lysag...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has outlined > below. > > If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose out > on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make. > It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search, a deep > knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the knowledge > will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be give. > > When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it has > moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to abandoning a > line by line port. > By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and .NET > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the moment); but > leave the core of the project on a line by line port. > > Just my tu-pence worth. > > Kind Regards > Noel > > > -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the > history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, all > the understanding of search, all the new features come from the Lucene > Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust them > to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and to > have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on. > > Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET > who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot more > value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll take > a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is significantly > diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at what > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all? > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to continue, > and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction. > > So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be > sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using Lucene > in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. So > let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general structure > close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance > set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other methods > and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same > file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of similarity, > with good documentation and help being available from the Java > community. > > Yours, > Moray > ------------------------------**------- > Moray McConnachie > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Granroth, Neal V. [mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com<neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> > ] > Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org<lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org<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:lombardenator@gmail.**com<lombardena...@gmail.com> > ] > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org <lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org>; > lucene-net-user@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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > Disclaimer > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If > this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or disclose > them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. > > Oxford Analytica Ltd > Registered in England: No. 1196703 > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > >
