As far as I can tell, this conversation can be summed up in 4 points which
there seems to be a high level of agreement upon:
- Maintain high level of source code compatibility with existing Lucene
project (much like NHibernate tracks Hibernate)
- Maintain strict compatibility with Lucene indexes
- Use .Net idioms when translating code as described in the development
guidelines
- Movement of existing Lucene.Net codebase to compatible yet idiomatic
.Net code can be done incrementally, as Lucene features are ported.
The idea of using guidelines to move the API in the desired direction by
the desired amount is also notable. I've picked the low hanging fruit from
the thread and from other Java-.Net conversions I've experienced:
- Explicit Close() coalesced, (where Close() is an explicit call to
Dispose() like ADO.Net does) with IDisposable()
- Replace listeners with events
- Replace get_XXX/set_XXX with property
- C# Style: Adhere to PascalCase class names, property names and method
names; camelCase field names and locals; BSD style braces
- XML-doc comment the javadoc comments
- Use interfaces in public contracts, not concrete classes
- Replace collections with generic collections
- Use IEnumerable<T> for collection types except if the collection is
known materialized, then use ICollection<T> except if indexing is needed,
then use IList<T>
- Replace anonymous types with delegates
- Replace constants with Enum
- Replace explicit calls to IEnumerator with foreach
- TBD: C# Style: Tabs/spaces? ; 'var' vs. explicit?
Perhaps this would make good fodder for a wiki page to base the ongoing
discussion around.
-r
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Christopher Currens <
currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andy,
>
> You said far more eloquently exactly what I was trying to say. That is
> exactly how I feel the project should progress.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > I think when I said I want all those things - I meant it as an
> > incremental, but something that we woudln't shy away from doing like
> we've
> > done so far. So I think you're thoughts regarding how to proceed are
> right
> > on par with mine.
> > > Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:10:16 +0000
> > > From: andy.p...@gmail.com
> > > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
> > >
> > > Thought I'd add my opinion as a user of Lucene.net...
> > >
> > > My company processes content from several feeds (mainly web but also
> > social
> > > media). The volumes are fairly large (100M's of documents). The results
> > are
> > > stored in lucene indexes.
> > >
> > > Points of interest:
> > > - We use 2.9.4g compiled against dotnet 4.0
> > > - We add our own tokens in parallel with the word tokens
> > > - We have our own parser (using Irony) so that we can extend the
> syntax
> > > (related to the extra tokens)
> > > - We have created a wrapper to abstract/hide most of the Lucene API
> > > - maps to and from poco objects
> > > - it exposes IEnumerable<TPoco>
> > >
> > > So much for the background.
> > > I agree with much of what is being said here. Particularly, let's make
> a
> > > choice and stop wasting the little resources the project has.
> > >
> > > I don't care about java. So I don't care that the API changes.
> > > I do want 100% index compatibility.
> > > I would like things like name capitalization, IDisposable, IEnumerable
> > etc.
> > > Though I think that g adds a little confusion by also using other
> > > collection types i.e. ICollection<T>, List<T> unnecessarily.
> > > I'd like to get to Lucene 4 as soon as possible. The NRT and Codec bits
> > > would solve a lot of the issues we spend a lot of time on. So being
> able
> > to
> > > catch up to java, currently 3.5, is high on my list.
> > > I like Troy's list of "I wants". I'd like all of that too. The question
> > is,
> > > how?
> > >
> > > I think the ancient argument about "line by line" or "transliteration"
> or
> > > "lets change the api" or "complete rewrite" can't be easily resolved
> > > because it obscures two separate things.
> > > 1. How do we port changes in java to the .net version
> > > 2. Most (all?) don't like the java api
> > >
> > > I don't think the project will survive if this cannot be resolved. It
> > > barely survived the last time. But I also don't believe that the
> project
> > > can achieve a full rewrite (such as Lucere started). At least, not yet.
> > It
> > > would take too much and is too easily divisive.
> > >
> > > I would like to see something like "line by line with formally defined
> > > mutations".
> > >
> > > I want to see Lucene.net on par with java Lucene and not continually a
> > year
> > > or more behind. I think the only way to get there is to adhere, mostly,
> > to
> > > the same basic code and structures as java.
> > >
> > > However, I also think that there should be a set of agreed and
> documented
> > > "mutations" that are applied (both retro fitting and applied to newly
> > > migrated changes). For example:
> > > - Method names are capitalized according to dotnet conventions
> > > - A class implementing Close should have IDisposable added according
> to
> > an
> > > agreed template/style
> > > - A collection class should implement IEnumerable<T> or ICollection<T>
> > or
> > > IList<T> depending on agreed criteria and according to an agreed
> > > template/style
> > > - Convert to enum
> > > - Convert to Func<T>/Action<T>
> > >
> > > I'm sure there are many more. All of the above need to be formalized
> into
> > > guidelines/criteria/templates/styles and agreed by the core committers.
> > The
> > > experience of the g branch should provide a solid start.
> > >
> > > Please use this or something like this so that we can accelerate
> towards
> > > parity with java Lucene.
> > > As the project progresses more mutations can be added as they become
> > > apparent.
> > > This doesn't mean that other refactoring cannot be done but I would
> hope
> > > that these can be discussed as mini-projects instead of opening this
> box
> > > yet again.
> > >
> > > My company is in the process of expanding it's dev team significantly
> so
> > > I'm hoping that I will be able to devote some time to help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > On 30 December 2011 04:55, Christopher Currens <
> currens.ch...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we could find a reasonable solution and get people to commit to
> it,
> > I
> > > > could see it being done, in fact, I'd like to see it done. If we had
> > more
> > > > developers and more time to work on it, it would be awesome to see
> that
> > > > kind of response and progress on the project. I would hope their
> > > > enthusiasm wouldn't fade with time; that it wouldn't just be a boost
> of
> > > > energy at the beginning of the (welcome) change and then fizzle out
> if
> > it
> > > > got to be too much for people. I will admit, I'm sure it's not
> > surprising,
> > > > but there are a lot of annoyances about Lucene.NET that could be done
> > away
> > > > with, if we did a re-write of the library.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I really have no idea who uses Lucene.NET besides those on
> this
> > > > project, and StackOverflow. I would hope we could get opinions and
> > advice
> > > > from those other users as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Christopher
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Troy Howard <thowar...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding release schedule and the amount of work to accomplish
> > > > > porting... What if we had 20 developers working on the project?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's likely that by changing what we're doing, we'll attract more
> > > > > people to work on the project and thus these concerns (which are
> > > > > perfectly valid concerns if you're attempting to port the entire
> > > > > library as a one or two person effort, as George, DIGY and you have
> > > > > done) will no longer be relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the *volume* of work is a problem, then a reasonable solution is
> > to
> > > > > scale up the quantity of devs on the project and get organized
> enough
> > > > > to keep them all productive. I'm certain that moving away from the
> > > > > line-by-line port will cause more developers to be interested in
> > > > > working on it. No one wants to do that kind of code and then have
> to
> > > > > look at the product of their work and still be annoyed by the API.
> > > > > This is essentially *exactly* where things were a year ago when the
> > > > > project was about to die and this is why.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I started up the Lucere project in response to these
> problems, I
> > > > > was flooded with devs offering to help, to the extent that I
> couldn't
> > > > > keep up with it and had to just start telling people we didn't need
> > > > > any more help. There is no reason that the same thing couldn't
> happen
> > > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Troy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Christopher Currens
> > > > > <currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Unfortunately, my desires for this project seem to change with
> the
> > > > > progress
> > > > > > that we make on it. What I mean, is that what I want right now,
> > will
> > > > > > likely be different from what I will want once we've released a
> few
> > > > more
> > > > > > versions. What I KNOW I want right now:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I want the line-by-line port to continue, but in respects of the
> > API, I
> > > > > > want things that "just don't make sense(tm)" in .NET to change.
> By
> > > > that
> > > > > I
> > > > > > mean removing Close() and properly implement the IDisposable
> > pattern.
> > > > > > Also, the Java iterator has a perfect .NET analog, IEnumerable.
> > The
> > > > > code
> > > > > > can essentially stay the same, but it enables real usage in .NET.
> > > > > > Fortunately, a great deal of 3.0.3 has already been moved over
> to
> > > > > > generics, so I'm actually concerned less with that. I want .NET
> > > > > > style-naming, and I want CLS compatibility where possible, at
> least
> > > > > > allowing for use in case-insensitive languages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When the project started, I didn't want a line-by-line port to
> > > > continue,
> > > > > > but once I touched every single part of this codebase that I
> > understood
> > > > > how
> > > > > > large this project is. I've realized that with the amount of time
> > that
> > > > > > everyone has been able to put into this project, I can't see a
> .NET
> > > > > version
> > > > > > being made until it's up to date with Java. Maybe I'm being
> > > > pessimistic,
> > > > > > maybe I'm not. I'm not trying to call anyone out or blame
> anyone,
> > we
> > > > all
> > > > > > have other jobs, but the amount of time that can be spent vs the
> > amount
> > > > > of
> > > > > > work a .NET centric re-write would take, just doesn't seem
> > possible,
> > > > > > considering the goals mention, of trying to keep up with Lucene.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would be more likely that a goal like that would
> > succeed, if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > codebase were caught up with java, and as the .netification was
> > being
> > > > > done,
> > > > > > any features, bugfixes, changes, or whatever would be immediately
> > > > > obvious.
> > > > > > I care very much about the index formats being the same, as well
> > as
> > > > the
> > > > > > query syntax, and think a search done in java against an index
> > should
> > > > > > behave the exact same way in .NET. I'm afraid that will the
> > amount of
> > > > > > effort it would take to do it now, when we're already behind,
> would
> > > > cause
> > > > > > the project to end up stagnating, like it did before, which I'm
> > > > committed
> > > > > > to not let happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That being said, if everyone else disagrees with me, that is
> > absolutely
> > > > > > fine. If no one would be against it, I would ask that I could
> > work on
> > > > a
> > > > > > line-by-line port on my own, in a separate branch, if no one else
> > > > wanted
> > > > > > to. For me, I think people want a) performance and b) the latest
> > > > version
> > > > > > with bug fixes. That's what I DO want out of this project, since
> > we're
> > > > > > using it in ours. I don't have exact benchmarks, but the
> > performance
> > > > of
> > > > > > the 3.0.3 branch is much better than 2.9.4, from indexing to
> > searching.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > should also mention that 2.9.4 introduced a memory leak that was
> > not
> > > > > > present in 2.9.2, and in 3.0.3, this memory leak no longer
> exists.
> > It
> > > > is
> > > > > > also more memory friendly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think that the line-by-line port hurts the performance of
> > > > > > Lucene.NET as much as it does annoy the crap out of everyone.
> I'm
> > > > > > seriously annoyed that I can't enumerate over Terms or TermDocs,
> > > > without
> > > > > > that terrible Next() and HasNext() crap. That's not to say that
> > moving
> > > > > > from a line-by-line port won't increase performance, of course.
> :)
> > I'm
> > > > > > definitely not against changing the API to facilitate a more .NET
> > > > > > experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's what I want. If no one else wants it, that's okay. If we
> > > > decide
> > > > > to
> > > > > > not have the line-by-line port an official part of Lucene.NET,
> > that's
> > > > > fine
> > > > > > too, I'm not going to stop working on it, I would likely wind up
> > > > working
> > > > > on
> > > > > > it outside this project. However, I think it's valuable to have
> > as an
> > > > > > official part of our releases, and I like to think its something
> > the
> > > > > > community wants, since I believe it would allow a faster release
> > > > schedule
> > > > > > than our own interpretation of a Lucene library.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Christopher
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Troy Howard <
> thowar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I completely agree with Michael's mentality on thinking of this
> > as a
> > > > > >> business and coming from the perspective of "what will wow our
> > > > > >> customers" ...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I also completely agree with Prescott, that we just need to get
> > down
> > > > > >> to brass tacks and say what we want it to be specifically and
> > > > > >> subjectively.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Here's what I want:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> * I want an extremely modern .NET API full of injection points
> > where I
> > > > > >> can pass lambdas, use IEnumerable<T> and all that System.Linq
> > > > > >> provides, interfaces for everything, as well as excellent unit
> > test
> > > > > >> coverage.
> > > > > >> * I want to write *very* minimal code to accomplish basic tasks
> > > > > >> * I want an average .NET developer be able to intuitively
> > understand
> > > > > >> and use the library with Intellisense as their only
> documentation
> > > > > >> * I want performance that meets or exceeds Java Lucene
> > > > > >> * I want no memory leaks
> > > > > >> * I want no "surprises" in general
> > > > > >> * I want minimal I/O
> > > > > >> * I want any execution that can be deferred or optimized out to
> be
> > > > > >> deferred or optimized out
> > > > > >> * I want any data that could be large in size to be streamable
> > > > > >> * I want no pointless unavoidable limitations on scale... and I
> > want
> > > > > >> to be able to horizontally distribute searching and indexing
> with
> > ease
> > > > > >> * I want every feature that Java Lucene's latest version has
> (and
> > then
> > > > > >> some)
> > > > > >> * I want the index formats to be compatible with every other
> > "Lucene"
> > > > > >> out there in whatever language and I want the query language to
> > work
> > > > > >> identically across all of them.. That is to say given query Text
> > "X"
> > > > > >> and index "Y" you will always get result set "Z" from every
> > > > > >> implementation of Lucene. Because when I have to get to my data
> > via
> > > > > >> Python, Java, C++, Ruby or whatever, I want everything to just
> > work.
> > > > > >> * I want to know which clauses in my query caused the result hit
> > and
> > > > > >> to what degree, without having to incur a huge performance hit
> > > > > >> * I want real-time updates without having to do a little dance
> and
> > > > > >> wave my hands to get it to work
> > > > > >> * I want to get a new major version of the library roughly once
> or
> > > > > >> twice a year and I want to be very impressed by the features in
> > the
> > > > > >> new version. I want bug fixes rolled out on a quarterly basis
> (at
> > > > > >> minimum) between those major versions.
> > > > > >> * I want to be able to trace or step-debug the execution of a
> > search
> > > > > >> or indexing process and not think "WTF" constantly. Some of that
> > code
> > > > > >> is extremely obtuse.
> > > > > >> * I want the query parser to be generated from a PEG grammar so
> > that I
> > > > > >> can easily generate one in other languages
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ... and much much more. I didn't even get into things like being
> > able
> > > > > >> to create custom indexes that use something other than strings
> > for the
> > > > > >> inversion product, decorating my POCO's properties with
> attributes
> > > > > >> like [Field("Description")] and just saying "Store", better
> query
> > > > > >> expansion, and blah blah blah. :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And I agree with Prescott on this one: I don't care *at all*
> about
> > > > > >> Java, other than porting code out of it so that it can run on
> > .NET. I
> > > > > >> hate Java, but I love a lot of the libraries written in it. I
> feel
> > > > > >> that the JVM is an inferior runtime to the CLR and the Java
> > language
> > > > > >> is like C#'s retarded cousin. I'll gladly write a new book on
> the
> > new
> > > > > >> API and publish it for free online, so people don't have to read
> > > > > >> "Lucene in Action" to learn Lucene.Net. I'll gladly spend the
> > time it
> > > > > >> takes to understand a changeset from the Java project and the
> > mentally
> > > > > >> model what they were trying to accomplish by it and then
> > re-engineer
> > > > > >> the change to apply to our library.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Basically, I don't want to limit the project to a line-by-line
> > port at
> > > > > >> all. I also don't want to piss people off and destroy the
> project
> > in
> > > > > >> the process. Soo... I'm flexible as well. :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Troy
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > geobmx...@hotmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Someone has to take a stand and call out what they prefer -
> > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > >> shooting out all the alternatives, we need to start voicing our
> > > > > opinions of
> > > > > >> which direction we need to go. I'll get us started: I want to
> see
> > > > > something
> > > > > >> that is more .NET like, I want to see something that can run on
> > the
> > > > > phone,
> > > > > >> xbox, pc, mono, etc. I want to use the latest and greatest .NET
> > has to
> > > > > >> offer. I do care that we keep the index files 100%
> compabitible.
> > I
> > > > also
> > > > > >> care that we try to keep up with Java in feature set and extras
> > > > > >> (contrib's). I couldn't care less about keeping the API in line
> > with
> > > > > java.
> > > > > >> I don't really care about the line by line - but others in the
> > past
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> said they did. My energy isn't really behind keeping that in
> line
> > but
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > >> help maintain it if that is what the community really wants.
> But I
> > > > agree
> > > > > >> with Troy - there are lots of options if you want the Java
> Lucene
> > > > > avaliable
> > > > > >> in .Net That's my feeling - but at the same time, I realize we
> > are a
> > > > > small
> > > > > >> community, and if we don't really agree with what we want to do,
> > then
> > > > we
> > > > > >> are SOL - I'm FLEXIBLE if others really want something or feel
> we
> > > > > should do
> > > > > >> something. ~P
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:51:09 -0500
> > > > > >> >> From: mhern...@wickedsoftware.net
> > > > > >> >> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Might I suggest that we all approach this as a business
> owners,
> > > > > >> community
> > > > > >> >> builders, startup entrepreneurs instead of developers for a
> > second.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> You have limited resources: time, budget, personnel, etc.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What is our two biggest metrics of success for this product?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> My guess is adoption and customer involvement (contributing
> > > > patches,
> > > > > >> >> tutorials, tweets, etc). Most likely both are those are
> going
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > >> >> carried by .NET developers as your inside promoter of
> > Lucene.NET.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> So what is going to wow them? bring them the most value?
> What
> > can
> > > > we
> > > > > >> >> provide so that it makes their job easier, cost effective,
> and
> > lets
> > > > > get
> > > > > >> >> home faster to their lives or significant other? What is a
> > break
> > > > out
> > > > > >> niche
> > > > > >> >> that Lucene.Net could have over Solr/Lucene?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> What is going to make an average developer more willing to
> > grow the
> > > > > >> >> community and contribute? What would encourage them to give
> up
> > > > their
> > > > > >> free
> > > > > >> >> time to do so?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I would approach the answer from this angle rather than
> > continue to
> > > > > talk
> > > > > >> >> about it from a developer/committer perspective as we keep
> > going in
> > > > > >> >> circles. You're not going to be able to please everyone, so
> > lets
> > > > > figure
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> >> was is going to deliver the most value to .NET developers and
> > go
> > > > from
> > > > > >> >> there.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> - michael
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Rory Plaire <
> > codekai...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > The other option for people not wanting a line-by-line port
> > is to
> > > > > just
> > > > > >> >> > stick with whichever the last version that had a
> line-by-line
> > > > > >> >> > transliteration done to it. This is done in a number of
> > projects
> > > > > >> where new
> > > > > >> >> > versions break compatibility. 2.9.4 is certainly a nice
> > > > release...
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > -r
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Troy Howard <
> > > > thowar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > Thinking about it, I should make myself more clear
> > regarding
> > > > why
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > brought up IKVM again, just so no one gets the wrong idea
> > about
> > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > intentions there...
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > I only mentioned it as a justification for dropping
> > > > line-by-line
> > > > > >> >> > > compatibility and as an alternative for people who really
> > care
> > > > > about
> > > > > >> >> > > that. As we discussed previously, IKVMed Lucene is not
> > > > Lucene.Net
> > > > > >> in a
> > > > > >> >> > > lot of important material ways. We are already deviating
> > > > > >> significantly
> > > > > >> >> > > from Java Lucene even with the "mostly line by line"
> > approach.
> > > > > >> Compare
> > > > > >> >> > > Lucene.Net 2.9.4 and IKVMed Java Lucene 2.9.4. They are
> > very
> > > > > >> different
> > > > > >> >> > > user experiences on a lot of levels (licensing,
> packaging,
> > data
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> > > used, etc).
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > But it's a *reasonable alternative* when a high-degree of
> > > > > >> consistency
> > > > > >> >> > > with Java Lucene is important to the end user and by
> > pointing
> > > > to
> > > > > >> IKVM
> > > > > >> >> > > as our answer to those users, we are free to move forward
> > > > without
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > concern.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > That means, supposing we move away from Java
> > significantly, as
> > > > a
> > > > > new
> > > > > >> >> > > end user looking to employ Lucene in their .NET product,
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > choose between IKVM Lucene (identical API to Java, can
> use
> > the
> > > > > >> latest
> > > > > >> >> > > Java build, performs well, may have some problems with
> > > > licensing
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > packaging) and Lucene.Net (different API but hopefully
> one
> > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > more palatable to .NET users so it'd be easy to learn,
> > perfoms
> > > > > >> better
> > > > > >> >> > > than IKVM, but has a dev cycle that lags behind Java,
> > possibly
> > > > > by a
> > > > > >> >> > > lot).
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Existing users who like who Lucene.Net as it is now, may
> > feel
> > > > > >> >> > > alienated because they would be forced to choose between
> > > > learning
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > new API and dealing with a slow dev cycle, or adapting to
> > IKVM
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > could be very difficult or impossible for them. Either
> one
> > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > require a code change. But of course, we run this risk
> > with any
> > > > > >> change
> > > > > >> >> > > we make to what we are doing. I think a greater risk is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > project lacks direction.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Anyway, it's just one idea/talking point towards the end
> > goal
> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > getting the general topic off the table completely.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > Troy
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Troy Howard <
> > > > > thowar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > Apologies upfront: another long email.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > My most firm opinion on this topic is that, as a
> > community,
> > > > we
> > > > > >> spend
> > > > > >> >> > > > too much time on this discussion. We should just simply
> > > > commit
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> >> > > > or the other path, or both, or some middle ground, or
> > just
> > > > > commit
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > not discussing it anymore and go with "whatever code
> gets
> > > > > written
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > works is what we use" and leave it up to the discretion
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > >> coder
> > > > > >> >> > > > who is actually spending time improving the product.
> > > > Obviously
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > last option is the worst of them.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > My view of our current roadmap is/was:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > 1. We'd maintain basic line-by-line consistency through
> > the
> > > > 2.x
> > > > > >> >> > > > releases. But 3.X and beyond were open to changing the
> > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > significantly. We are committed to changing the API and
> > > > > internal
> > > > > >> >> > > > implementations in order to improve performance and
> > developer
> > > > > >> >> > > > experience on .NET, but haven't yet had made a plan for
> > that
> > > > > (eg,
> > > > > >> no
> > > > > >> >> > > > spec for a new API).
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > 2. We'd try to automate the porting process so that it
> > was
> > > > > >> repeatable
> > > > > >> >> > > > and easy to keep up with (or at least easier) and
> > maintain a
> > > > > >> >> > > > line-by-line port in a branch. That means the .NET
> > version
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > ultimately be a very different product than the
> > line-by-line
> > > > > port
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > we'd be creating two separate but related products but
> > where
> > > > > >> possible,
> > > > > >> >> > > > share code between them. Patching the line-by-line
> > product
> > > > from
> > > > > >> Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > would be easier and faster than patching the .NET
> > product and
> > > > > so
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> >> > > > may end up with different release schedules.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > It seems that effort on improving automation of the
> port
> > has
> > > > > >> tapered
> > > > > >> >> > > > off. As anyone who has done any of the porting from
> > commit
> > > > > patches
> > > > > >> >> > > > from Java knows, a good portion of that work can be
> > automated
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > find/replace but substantial portions and certain
> > scenarios
> > > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > current code definitely cannot be and probably will
> > never be
> > > > > able
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > be fully automated.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > While I have been advocating "doing both" and trying to
> > find
> > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > strategy that makes sense for that, another option is
> to
> > just
> > > > > >> >> > > > officially drop any concern for line-by-line
> consistency
> > with
> > > > > >> Java. A
> > > > > >> >> > > > justification for that is simple: IKVM provides this
> > already.
> > > > > The
> > > > > >> >> > > > licensing allows use in commercial apps and it's
> > performance
> > > > is
> > > > > >> close
> > > > > >> >> > > > to the same, so, AFAIK it's a viable replacement for a
> > > > > >> line-by-line
> > > > > >> >> > > > version of Lucene.Net in just about any context as long
> > as no
> > > > > one
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > > modifying IKVM itself. I don't think it's unreasonable
> to
> > > > > suggest
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > people who want a line-by-line version to use IKVM
> > instead of
> > > > > >> >> > > > Lucene.Net.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > So, if we use that perspective and say that the need
> for
> > a
> > > > .NET
> > > > > >> usable
> > > > > >> >> > > > line-by-line version of Lucene is already available via
> > IKVM,
> > > > > why
> > > > > >> >> > > > would we bother handcoding another one? It makes more
> > sense
> > > > to
> > > > > >> focus
> > > > > >> >> > > > our valuable hand coding work on making something that
> > > > > *improves*
> > > > > >> upon
> > > > > >> >> > > > the .NET development experience. It may cause us to be
> > slow
> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > release, but for good reason.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > So it seems to me we have the following primary agenda
> > items
> > > > to
> > > > > >> deal
> > > > > >> >> > > with:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > 1. Make an official decision regarding line-by-line
> > porting,
> > > > > >> publish
> > > > > >> >> > > > it and document our reasoning, so that we can end the
> > > > ambiguity
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > circular discussions
> > > > > >> >> > > > 2. If line-by-line porting is still part of our plan
> > after we
> > > > > >> >> > > > accomplish Agenda Item #1, resume work on improving
> > > > automation
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > porting, creating scripts/tools/etc and document the
> > process
> > > > > >> >> > > > 3. If having a different API for .NET is still part of
> > our
> > > > plan
> > > > > >> after
> > > > > >> >> > > > we accomplish Agenda Item #1, spec those API changes
> and
> > > > > >> associated
> > > > > >> >> > > > internal changes required and publish the spec
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > And to drive home the point I made in my first
> sentence:
> > If
> > > > had
> > > > > >> >> > > > already accomplished those three agenda items, the
> time I
> > > > just
> > > > > >> spent
> > > > > >> >> > > > typing this email could have been spent working on
> > > > Lucene.Net.
> > > > > We
> > > > > >> need
> > > > > >> >> > > > to get to that point if we want to maintain any kind of
> > > > > >> development
> > > > > >> >> > > > velocity.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > > Troy
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > >> >> > geobmx...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >> I dont think at the end of the day we want to make
> just
> > > > > cosmetic
> > > > > >> >> > > changes. We also have the issue of same name different
> > casing
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> needs
> > > > > >> >> > > to be fixed - but it's not clear how to manage that
> without
> > > > some
> > > > > >> large
> > > > > >> >> > > adjustments to the API.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > > > >> >> > > >> ________________________________
> > > > > >> >> > > >> From: Troy Howard
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Sent: 12/29/2011 2:19 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > >> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and
> > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> My vote goes to merging the two:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Apply the same concepts from 2.9.4g to 3.X
> development,
> > > > using
> > > > > >> generics
> > > > > >> >> > > >> where possible, Disposable vs Close, and exposing
> > > > *additional*
> > > > > >> APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > >> for generics (but leaving the existing old ones) to
> > enable
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >> underlying performance improvements the generics
> offer.
> > > > Also,
> > > > > >> expose
> > > > > >> >> > > >> IEnumerable<T> implementations vs Java style
> > > > > >> enumerables/iterators.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> If we are only adding to the existing and making
> > relatively
> > > > > minor
> > > > > >> >> > > >> changes to enable generics, updating/maintenance
> should
> > be
> > > > > >> relatively
> > > > > >> >> > > >> easy and it won't break anyone's code.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > >> Troy
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Prescott Nasser <
> > > > > >> >> > geobmx...@hotmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> I agree its a matter of taste. I'd vote continue with
> > g and
> > > > > >> evolve it
> > > > > >> >> > > to where we want a .net version to be. What do others
> > think?
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Sent from my Windows Phone
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> ________________________________
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> From: Digy
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Sent: 12/29/2011 1:16 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and
> > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> When I started that "g" branch, I had no intention to
> > > > change
> > > > > >> the API,
> > > > > >> >> > > but at
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> the end it resulted in a few changes
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> like StopAnalyzer(List<string> stopWords),
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Query.ExtractTerms(ICollection<string>) etc.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> But I think, a drop-in replacement will work for most
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > Lucene.Net
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> users (Of course some contribs have been also
> modified
> > > > > >> accordingly)
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Changing arraylists/collections with generic
> > counterparts,
> > > > > >> >> > > GetEnumerator's
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> with foreach, AnonymousClass's with
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Func<> or Action<>'s and Fixing LUCENENET-172 are
> > things
> > > > most
> > > > > >> people
> > > > > >> >> > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> not notice.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> This "g" version includes also some other patches
> that
> > were
> > > > > >> fixed for
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> .GE.(=>) Lucene3.1 (Which? I have to rework on my
> > commits)
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> So, there isn't much change in API, more changes for
> > > > > developers
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> stable code(At least I think so, since I use this "g"
> > > > > version in
> > > > > >> >> > > production
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> env. for months without any problem. For short,
> 2.9.4g
> > is a
> > > > > >> superset
> > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> 2.9.4 in bugfix level)
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> As a result, creating a new branch for .Net friendly
> > > > > Lucene.Net
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> continuing on this branch is just a matter of taste.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> DIGY
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardena...@gmail.com]
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 5:05 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and
> > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> I don't see the g branch differing all that much from
> > the
> > > > > >> >> > line-by-line
> > > > > >> >> > > port.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> All the g branch does is change some data types as
> > > > generics,
> > > > > >> but line
> > > > > >> >> > > by
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> line the code the same once the generics are
> declared.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> I don't see 2.9.4g being any closer to a .NET style
> > version
> > > > > than
> > > > > >> >> > 2.9.4.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> While it does generics use for list style variable
> > types
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > underlying
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> classes are still the same and all of the problems
> with
> > > > 2.9.4
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> >> > > being .NET
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> enough would be true in 2.9.4g.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> I would have to refer to Digy on if it changes how an
> > end
> > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > interacts
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> with Lucene.NET. If it does not affect how the end
> > user
> > > > > >> interacts
> > > > > >> >> > with
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Lucene.NET then I think we should merge it into the
> > Trunk
> > > > and
> > > > > >> go from
> > > > > >> >> > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> on 3.0.3.
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Scott
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx...@hotmail.com
> ]
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:28 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and
> > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Any reason we can't continue this g branch and make
> it
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> and more .net like? I was thinking about what we've
> > > > > expressed
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> at goals - we want a line by line port - it's easy
> to
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> maintain parity with java and easy to compare. We
> also
> > > > want
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> more .NET version - the g branch gets this started -
> > > > > although
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> it's not as .Net as people want (I think).
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> What if we used the g branch as our .Net version and
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> continued to make it more .Net like? and kept the
> > trunk as
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> the line by line? The G branch seems like a good
> > start to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> more .Net version anyway - we might as well build
> off
> > of
> > > > > that?
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> ---------------------------------------- > From:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> digyd...@gmail.com > To:
> > lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:45:23 +0200 > Subject: RE:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> [Lucene.Net] Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > >
> > but I
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> guess the future of 2.9.4g depends on the extent
> that
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> becoming > more .NET like > > My intention while I
> was
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> creating that branch was just to make 2.9.4 a >
> > little bit
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> more .Net like(+ maybe some performance). > I used
> > many
> > > > > codes
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> from 3.0.3 Java. So it is somewhere between 2.9.4 &
> > 3.0.3
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> But I didn't think it as a separate branch to evolve
> > on
> > > > its
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> own path. It > is(or I think it is) the final
> version
> > of
> > > > 2.9
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > DIGY > > -----Original Message----- > From:
> > > > Christopher
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Currens [mailto:currens.ch...@gmail.com] > Sent:
> > > > Wednesday,
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> December 28, 2011 9:20 PM > To:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > Cc:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re:
> > > > > [Lucene.Net]
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > One of the
> > benefits of
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> moving forward with the conversion of the Java >
> > Lucene,
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> that they're using more recent versions of Java that
> > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > things like generics and enums, so the direct port
> > is
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> getting more and more > like .NET, though not in all
> > > > > respects
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> of course. I'm of the mind, though, > that one of
> the
> > > > larger
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> annoyances, Iterables, should be converted to >
> > > > Enumerables
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> in the direct port. It makes it a pain to use it in
> > .NET >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> without it inheriting from IEnumerable, since it
> > can't be
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> used in a foreach > loop or with linq. Also, since
> the
> > > > > direct
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> port isn't perfect anyway, it > seems a port of the
> > IDEA
> > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> iterating would be more in the spirit of what >
> we're
> > > > trying
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> to accomplish, since the code would pretty much be
> the
> > > > same,
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > just with different method names. > > I sort of
> got
> > off
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> topic there for a second, but I guess the future of
> >
> > > > 2.9.4g
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> depends on the extent that it is becoming more .NET
> > like.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Obviously, while java is starting to use similar
> > > > constructs
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> that we have > in .NET, it will never be perfect.
> > > > > Admittedly,
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> I haven't looked at 2.9.4g > in a little while, so
> > I'm not
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> sure how much it now differs from 3.x, since >
> > there's a
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> relatively large change there already. > > Thanks, >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Christopher > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 9:13 PM,
> > Prescott
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Nasser > wrote: > > > > > That's a great question -
> I
> > > > know a
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> lot of people like the generics, and I > > don't
> > really
> > > > want
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> it to disappear. I'd like to keep it in parity with
> > the >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> trunk. But I know we also have a goal of making
> > Lucene.Net
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> more .Net like > > (further than 2.9.4g), and I
> don't
> > know
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> how that fits in. We are a pretty > > small
> community
> > and
> > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> know everyone has some pretty busy schedules so it
> > >
> > > > takes
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> us considerable time to make big progress. Trying to
> > keep
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> three > > different code bases probably isn't the
> > right
> > > > way
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> to go. > > > > > > > > > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011
> > 13:02:03
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> +1100 > > > From: mitiag...@gmail.com > > > To:
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject:
> > > > > [Lucene.Net]
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> Lucene.Net 3 onwards and 2.9.4g > > > > > > I was
> > browsing
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> "Roadmap" emails from November in Lucene developer
> > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> It > > > remains unclear in what state Lucene 3
> > porting
> > > > is ,
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> but my question more > > > about 2.9.4g . > > > Is
> it
> > kind
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> experimental dead end variation of 2.9.4 with
> > generics ? >
> > > > > Am
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> > > > I right in classifying it as more .Net like
> > 2.9.4
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> is unrelated to > > > roadmap Lucene 3 porting
> > effort. > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> ----- > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version:
> > > > > 2012.0.1901
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>> / Virus Database: 2109/4708 - Release Date:
> 12/28/11 >
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> -----
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > > >> >> > > >>> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4710 -
> > Release
> > > > > Date:
> > > > > >> >> > > 12/29/11
> > > > > >> >> > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
