If I read you right, you're looking for a standards board of some kind to
develop the standards (file formats, QueryParser syntax, etc). I think that
makes total sense, but the way I see it, the Java group is the standards board
at the moment. We are playing catch up to get in the game, but once we are up
to parity, I don't see why we wouldn't have the ability to make suggestions and
help steer the "standards"
> From: paul.hadfi...@palmerharvey.co.uk
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:13:48 +0000
> Subject: RE: Lucene project announcement
>
> It feels to be that the problem is being approached a* about face (i.e. the
> wrong way wrong). Maybe it is the way that ASF works but do the constraints
> of Java define "Lucene, or should it bigger than that? Should Lucene be a
> full text engine concept that can safely be developed in multiple languages?
> I'm sure everyone would agree that it would be silly to have different
> underlying file/data formats and it would definitely make sense that the
> rules for processing should be the same. But could the developers behind
> Lucene.JAVA and Lucene.NET work together to define an independent Lucene
> project and road-map, etc. This could then be developed in each language
> independently of each other and heaven forbid, Oracle managed to destroy all
> that is good about Java then Lucene would continue regardless, etc.
>
> However, if the above (dream?) could not be met, I can't see any way other
> than keeping with a direct port in the short term. Once it is proven that
> Lucene.NET can keep up with the Java development, then it might be possible
> to think about something other than a direct port. This would simply be
> because every Lucene.NET release is currently trying to catch up with 'x'
> Lucene releases and it feels like anything other than a direct port would
> make that nigh on impossible to determine what needs to be implemented in the
> .NET version.
>
> - Paul.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Merkl [mailto:h...@hmerkl.com]
> Sent: 11 November 2010 21:53
> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucere project announcement
>
> Keep in mind that Java Lucene is being developed actively. Once you
> start to optimize for .NET, it will become harder and harder to keep
> up with future Java Lucene development.
>
> Whats does MPS do that may be useful for Lucene.NET?
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 14:54, Karell Ste-Marie <stema...@brain-bank.com>
> wrote:
> > I have done no other past contribution other than use the product,
> >
> > Can I be reminded, once again, why we don't use the .NET Optimized
> > approaches instead of doing a straight code-code port?
> >
> > I understand that the whole purpose of the project is to be a Lucene
> > port to .NET, but should we not at some point in time optimize more for
> > .NET than just continue to try and port more Java to .NET code? From
> > Scratch? Each and every version?
> >
> > It seems to be that if that is the approach then perhaps it would be
> > time better spent to look into a tool such as MPS
> > (http://www.jetbrains.com/mps/) and then use the source java language
> > through this which would product .NET code on the other side.
> >
> > Or perhaps I've just managed to place a size-12 foot in my mouth because
> > the current process is actually almost exactly this today?
> >
> > Comments welcome...
> >
> >
> >
> > Karell Ste-Marie
> > C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc
> > (514) 636-6655
> >
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> --=Disclaimer=--
> This communication is to be treated as confidential and the information
> contained in it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which
> it has been sent. If you have received this communication in error, please
> destroy it immediately and notify postmas...@palmerharvey.co.uk. Any
> defamatory statements or infringements of copyright or licenses by employees
> of Palmer & Harvey McLane Limited are contrary to company policy. The company
> will not accept any liability in respect of such a communication. Computer
> viruses can be transmitted by email. The recipient should check this email
> and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Palmer & Harvey McLane
> Limited accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
> by this email.
>
> Palmer & Harvey McLane Limited.
> Company registered in England & Wales. Regd. No. 1874153.
> Regd Office P&H House, Davigdor Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 1RE.
> **********************************************************************
