> The 3.0.X ports should be 100% Sharpen Why? What about other alternatives?
Lucene.java 3.0.3 ==> .Net Conversion Samples ( http://people.apache.org/~digy/Lucene.Net.3.0.3.zip ) DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 1:58 AM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support We are inheriting the outstanding issues facing the Lucene.Net project. This includes remaining committed to providing a line-by-line port that stays in sync with the Java Lucene releases. The project is currently extremely behind schedule on this. The 2.9.2 code base, which is widely used and thus a fairly well received build, has never been formally packaged as a release (i.e. binary builds, etc). This is the first order of business to take care of (in terms of code). After that we need to evaluate weather or not to create releases to match all subsequent releases made by the Java Lucene project. Those releases are: - 3.0.0 - 3.0.1 - 2.9.3 - 3.0.2 - 2.9.4 - 3.0.3 In the interest of time, we could skip some of the intermediate releases and just get in sync at 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 releases. The 3.0.X ports should be 100% Sharpen conversions and post-processing scripts. Once written, anyone should be able to repeat the process of pulling down the appropriate Java Lucene SVN revision, executing the porting scripts, and building the resulting .NET code, yield a valid 3.0.X release with a 1:1 matching API. This is something we will need to continue being able to do for every subsequent Java Lucene release. This aspect of our development should be completely separate from our refactoring/re-imagining of a more .NET-like API. They need to be separate development branches, and possibly even completely different implementations. We will attempt to reuse as much of the automated port code as we can, with the understanding that the goal of the secondary branch is to make a high-quality .NET implementation of Lucene, rather than a API compatible implementation. Thanks, Troy On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Alex Thompson <pierogi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we could just bug-fix support the current 2.9.2 codebase unless people > really need something in 2.9.x > > I think there would be a 3.0.x line-by-line port and a 3.0.x idiomatic > version. > > I'd like to throw another idea into the mix which is perhaps the idiomatic > version could be created by an automated refactoring of the line-by-line. It > might be additional upfront work but might make it easier for future changes > from java lucene to be propagated down. > > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: mhern...@amptools.net [mailto:mhern...@amptools.net] On Behalf Of > Michael Herndon > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 1:28 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Proposal Stage: Backwards Compatibility / Support > > *Backwards Compatibility / Support: * > This is definitely something we need to cover. > > I'm guessing the obvious choice would be to continue the 2.9.X versions > under sharpen, maintain the current api thats has java idioms so that people > can continue to use it, release patches, ensure stability with the current > community. This would be important for people who have built products on top > of lucene.net. > > The 3.0 version should probably match java in terms of breaking the api due > to the language changes or maybe even a separate project inside: > lucene.netredux (for lack of a better term at the moment). > > > * > * > -- > Michael Herndon > >
