Itamar, OrderedDictionary does look like it would do the trick! I will check it out. We should be good without System.Web reference, as that one comes into play only if we were to use a subclass of it, AdapterDictionary that is in the web namespace.
Laimonas On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> wrote: > There's this: > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.collections.specialized.ordereddictionary(v=vs.110).aspx > but I'm not sure we want a reference to System.Web > > I assume we will have to bring in a parallel implementation, now question > is which > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/754233/is-it-there-any-lru-implementation-of-idictionary/3719378#3719378 > http://stackoverflow.com/a/487006/135701 > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am looking currently at the failures in > > Lucene.Net.Index.TestBinaryDocValuesUpdates and found the culprits. The > > offending class is this one: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.Core/Index/BufferedUpdates.cs > > > > First fix is easy, remove the ; that got in there by mistake on line 285. > > The second issue is that in Lucene this class is using LinkedHashMap > > structure. During the port, a HashMap was used instead which breaks > certain > > behaviors. Key feature of the LinkedHashMap that Lucene is relying on > > appears to be the fact that the order of insertions is reflected in the > > iteration of the values. You can see the failure if you run > > the TestUpdatesOrder class. > > > > Has anyone dealt with LinkedHashMap before in .NET? Any implementation > > suggestions / pointers? > > > > Due to the nature of this bug, it might be affecting more than just the > > tests in BinaryDocValuesUpdates. > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I just fixed a couple more > > > > > > The Index namespace has some concurrency issues, but also many failures > > > which relate to the Store ones. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > Lucene.NET committer and PMC member > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Laimonas Simutis <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > With yesterday's PR which contains more merge related fixes, > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/66, we are reaching the > > > milestone > > > > of only 100 failing tests in core! Woot woot! (TC is showing 98, > > locally > > > I > > > > get ~104). > > > > > > > > From Codec tests in current core, Lucene40 still has 4 failures, so > > going > > > > after them next and then looking into Lucene.Net.Index test > namespace. > > > > Heads up in case anyone else is working on the tests there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Laimonas > > > > > > > > > >
