I agree regarding framework versions. Lucene 4 == .NET 4 ... Simple. :) On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> I'm on the same page with 3.x and 4.x supporting differing versions. > For actual effort, where do we put it now? Do we get up to speed with 3.6 > quickly, then try to do the 4.x? > > > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:27:04 -0800 > > Subject: Long-terms plans for supporting .NET 3.5 > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > > > > There was an email thread last week (Lucene v3.6 > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucenenet-dev/201301.mbox/browser > ) > > where the feasibility of continuing support of .NET 3.5 was put into > > question. There are a few design patterns in Lucene 4.0 that would not > > only be difficult to port to a .NET 3.5 target, but would also likely > > complicate and clutter the code if trying to support both runtimes. > > > > The most used pattern deals with variance, which is only really supported > > in .NET 4.0, and still differently than it is in Java. Since generic > > variance is not supported at all in .NET 3.5, it would make the porting > > process a pain. > > > > Here is what I think, which I've already stated in that last email > thread. > > I think that the port of Lucene 4.0 should be limited exclusively to > .NET > > 4.0 or greater frameworks. I _do not_ think that we should drop .NET 3.5 > > support in the entire project. I know that we have many people that > still > > rely on having a library targeting the 2.0 runtime. > > > > Instead, I think we should maintain two branches of lucene, similar to > how > > the java team does it, once for 3.x and one for 4.x. The 3.x branch > would > > support both .NET 3.5 and .NET 4.0, whereas the 4.x branch would only > > support .NET 4.0 or greater. The 3.x branch would likely not be a > perfect > > port, since the later versions of lucene 3.x do start to include some > > features that are difficult to translate into pre-.NET 4.0 targets. > > > > There were also requests in that thread to make the Lucene 4.0 port > include > > features like async/await API support, lambdas, and other .NET features. > I > > think that those with busier schedules and/or less time to devote to the > > project would be able to give valuable feedback when it comes to making > > design decisions for the API. > > > > I think that this could be a good plan, and for those who are less than > > thrilled to work on porting lucene 3.x, I'm willing to do the bulk of > that > > myself, if it's more desirable to work on the 4.0 branch. I think it's a > > relatively large investment, though, since the jump from where we are now > > to lucene 4.0 is large enough that it will take a good amount of time and > > effort from everyone to keep it going. > > > > Hopefully there are comments on this. If there's not much discussion > about > > this in the next few days, I'm just going to set up a vote and go from > > there. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher > >
