@Shad the docs are in reasonable shape and I have time to progress these further.
I'm actually happy to take the lead on getting any/all documentation in a state where it's more usable than what we have today. I'll post on the dev channel separately about this but I agree it would be easier to recruit more devs to contribute if there was a more clear/concise website, docs, and getting started guide. On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:59 AM Shad Storhaug <[email protected]> wrote: > Farhad, > > > 1. The current version of Lucene.Net is 3.0.3 which was released on > October > 10, 2012. I am assuming this was on par with the Java code of the same > version. > > Correct. > > > > 2. The current effort that you describe is targeting 4.8.0 and possibly > 4.8.1 of the Lucene codebase. > > Correct. There have been some discussions about upgrading the project to > 4.8.1, and there are only about 120 files that differ between the versions. > We are somewhere in the middle now because a lot of the recent > contributions were brought over from 4.8.1. The differences to the Lucene > core library were significant, though and IMO it would be best to wait > until we have released 4.8.0 before considering a full upgrade to 4.8.1. > The performance benefits will probably be worth the relatively minor effort > before upgrading to a higher major version of Lucene. > > > > 3. The current Java version of Lucene is 7.3.1. > > Correct. However the hump we are just about over is the big one. There > were major changes to the project structure from 3.x to 4.x and the project > size also increased by more than a factor of 10. By contrast, the changes > to the project structure are minor going forward. I tried getting a line > comparison the same as I did between 4.8.0 and 4.8.1, but it was thrown off > by the fact that code comments have been restructured and other changes > that have no effect on the actual executable code. So it is hard to get a > feel for how much change is there from the repo. > > That said, the structure and layout of the classes is easily more than 90% > the same. I am confident the project can be upgraded to the latest version > without going through a complete port again after the release by doing file > by file comparisons and porting only the diff into Lucene.Net. I have > outlined the procedure here: > > https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/pull/174#issuecomment-251614795 > > I don't see any real reason why the next jump couldn't be all the way to > the latest Lucene version in a small fraction of the time it took to port > 4.8.0 by changing the individual files and leaving the project structure > relatively unchanged. > > > > > > Are we going to attract a significantly larger community of users as we > move to version 4.8.1? > > I would say that is a resounding yes. There have been several reports of > bugs/performance issues in 3.0.3. Not to mention, we have heard lots of > positive feedback about how much better the performance is (for the most > part) from 4.8.0. > > The download count (of all versions) was averaging about 600 per day 2 > years ago. Now it is up to 950 per day. The bulk of the downloads are > 3.0.3, but getting 4.8.0 out of pre-release will certainly change that. > > > > We will also be competing with active projects like Elastic Search for > .NET > (NEST) project. Maybe low-level access to Lucene core is not that important > anymore? > > This is a good point, and may be a factor in the number of contributions > we have been getting. However, keep in mind the numbers that Stefan are > throwing out there are CONTRIBUTIONS BY PMC MEMBERS, there have been > several contributions by non PMC members over the past year. The download > counts indicate the popularity of Lucene.Net as a dependency is growing > significantly despite being stuck at 3.0.3. > > Another factor is that having an integrated solution will always > outperform an HTTP API based platform such as Elastic Search, and for many > that makes all the difference in the decision. > > Also, I noticed one other NuGet projects are now targeting Lucene.Net > 4.8.0-beta00005: > https://www.nuget.org/packages/Kalix.Leo.Lucene/11.0.10-alpha, which > means there is another potential contributor out there. > > > Another consideration: You don't really have to know much about Lucene or > Java to be a part of the porting effort. Most of the work can be done with > the help of Google or by searching the codebase to find out how other > similar pieces of code were ported. At this stage in the game, we mostly > just need people to thoroughly test, report, and fix bugs. > > Thanks, > Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: farhad khalafi [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 9:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: State / Future of the Lucene.Net Project > > Stefan, > > Thank you for your help in keeping this project alive up to this point and > trying to re-ignite some interest in moving it forward. > > I have a few questions that will influence the extent of my possible > involvement with this project. > > 1. The current version of Lucene.Net is 3.0.3 which was released on October > 10, 2012. I am assuming this was on par with the Java code of the same > version. > 2. The current effort that you describe is targeting 4.8.0 and possibly > 4.8.1 of the Lucene codebase. > 3. The current Java version of Lucene is 7.3.1. > > As I am not very familiar with advanced features of each version, could you > summarize what major enhancements are included as you move from 3.0.3 to > 4.8.1 to 7.3.1 > > The version numbers are abstract and don't tell much about feature gaps as > we try to play catch with the Java version. > > Are we going to attract a significantly larger community of users as we > move to version 4.8.1? > > What will be missing as compared to the current Java version? > > I fully appreciate the amount of work involved in porting this code even > when using automated tools. > I am just not sure that once the task is accomplished, the users will not > dismiss it as an already "outdated version". > > We will also be competing with active projects like Elastic Search for .NET > (NEST) project. Maybe low-level access to Lucene core is not that important > anymore? > > Thanks again, > Farhad > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:26 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 2018-05-28, Alberto León wrote: > > > > > Me too, but please, make easy to prepare the environment, I love code > by > > I > > > hate the sysadmin things > > > > :-) > > > > As I said in a different mail I'm afraid we lack hands, so I doubt > > anybody will magically appear and streamline the build process. > > > > From what I understand building and running tests should work fine as > > long as you've got .NET Core and Powershell installed in Windows - if > > this is not your environment things become tricky. I'd recommend you try > > building and if things don't work as expected ask on the dev list. > > > > Stefan > > > -- Kind regards / Med venlig hilsen Shannon Deminick Director of Moon based operations https://umbraco.com Phone: +45 70 26 11 62
