This sounds like a good idea to me. Please create a JIRA entry for this.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Andrei Alecu<[email protected]> wrote: > One thing I'd like to see in a future version is the implementation of > IDisposable on the classes that have a .Close(). > > I already have some helper classes in a LuceneExtender project I made, such > as: > > public class DisposableIndexWriter : IndexWriter, IDisposable > { > ...constructors... > > public void Dispose() > { > base.Close(); > } > } > > So I can then do this: > > using (var writer = new DisposableIndexWriter(IndexDirectory, new > PorterStemmerAnalyzer())) > { > ..update index.. > } > > But this should be implemented in the base directly. It's a very small > diversion from the Java code base but a sensible improvement. > > > > > > > > George Aroush wrote: >> >> Hi Rune, >> >> Be very carefully with any enhancement change you make or propose, they >> won't be welcome. The goal is to keep deltas between previous ports as >> small as possible so that subsequent ports can be managed. >> >> Do a search in the archive for a background about how a port is done. I >> documented it. >> >> As for how you can contribute, and this is for everyone who asked, please >> grab the current code off the trunk and use it. Check the NUnit results, >> and see what if anything fails for you, and work on them. Check "contrib" >> and port over existing projects or new once. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- George >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rune Vistnes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July >> 30, 2009 6:49 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Considering to contribute >> >> Hey guys, >> >> I haven't received any response yet, so I guess I can try to take some >> initiative and see how that goes: >> >> My first proposed change is regarding to namespace imports and fully >> qualified names. I've notived that fully qualified names are being >> used alot, and in my opinion, they clutter the code, and make the code >> harder to read. Making better use of the 'using' directive is a task >> that can be automated by the use of various tools, one of which is >> ReSharper. I've already used this tool to update the code (revision >> 799135) to remove fully qualified names and use the 'using' directive >> instead- It also removed quite a few unused namespace imports. This >> change reduced the number of code warnings given by ReSharper >> considerably, and this actually helped me spot a couple of bugs in the >> code (I'm currently located at another computer and do not remember >> the details behind the bugs, but I will bring them to attention at a >> later time). >> >> Is this patch something you would be interested in applying? >> >> PS: I have noticed that trunk has started to show signs of the 2.4.0 >> conversion, which is good news. Nice work! >> >> runenur >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:07 PM, runenur<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hey, >>> I've been playing with Lucene.Net for a while, and there are some issues >>> that I have noticed. First of all, it is very clear from the API that it >>> >> >> is >> >>> >>> a more or less direct port of Lucene, and does not really feel .NET-ish. >>> Also, I've noticed that it usually takes a while for a new Lucene release >>> >> >> to >> >>> >>> get ported to Lucene.Net. For that reason, I am considering to offer some >>> >> >> of >> >>> >>> my time to help keeping the code base up to date and to follow the .NET >>> design guidelines in a better manner. In that regard, I have a few >>> >> >> questions >> >>> >>> I would love if someone could answer: >>> * Does the code following a coding convention of some kind? For example, >>> I've noticed that tabbed and spaced tabs are used intermixed, leaving me >>> >> >> to >> >>> >>> believe that might not be the case. >>> * Do there exist a prioritized list of what should or could be done to >>> the >>> code base? >>> * How far along is the 2.4.x port? >>> With best regards, >>> runenur >>> >> >> >> > >
