Anyone else get the feeling that Java and C# are kind of like British and American english -- two people separated by a nearly common language?
As for inspiration, RavenDb might be a good place to start. It has native Lucene querying capabilities and the API is quite sexy and has a number of good people designing and beating on it. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I think good documentation, examples that have best practices is key to > fostering a good Lucene.Net community. No question in my mind that we would > do this. > ~Prescott > > > >> Subject: RE: Proposal Stage: Net Idiomatic Api Version >> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 12:32:45 -0500 >> From: stema...@brain-bank.com >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> >> Peter, >> >> I completely agree - upon reading my last post it lacked a critical >> component to actually bring some value to the conversation which you >> mentioned. The USING keyword is key, perhaps as Robert mentioned it may >> not be in the best of lights given the context of the example but that >> is indeed how it should be used in the .NET framework. >> >> Perhaps the documentation for Lucene.NET can include examples that >> demonstrate the use of some of the expensive classes implemented as >> Singletons - perhaps even code that up for the client as part of the >> library itself (or in code examples). Clumsy coders would then not be >> able to "mess up" the performance of Lucene.NET as much as they could >> given their broad control over some of these objects and their lifetime. >> >> >> >> Karell Ste-Marie >> C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Mateja [mailto:peter.mat...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:15 PM >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Proposal Stage: Net Idiomatic Api Version >> >> Robert... good points all. I especially agree that basing initial >> idiomatic work on 3.0+ makes sense (indeed, I believe this is what >> Lucere.Net had agreed to do.) >> >> Use of IDisposable can certainly lead to worst practices concerning >> IndexReader / IndexWriter objects. However, the IDisposable pattern (if >> implemented correctly... see >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b1yfkh5e.aspx, >> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/idisposable.aspx and Framework >> Design Patterns book mentioned earlier), really is the best way (in >> .Net) to ensure proper handling of both unmanaged resources, and >> stateful managed resources. >> >> I think a good combination of documentation and examples could do much >> to discourage worst practices. In some cases, the sample 'using' code >> you refer to might be appropriate... though in most the lifetime of an >> IndexWriter object might be controlled at a higher context (AppDomain, >> etc.) Let's ensure that Lucene.Net users know the how and why for each >> approach. >> >> Peter Mateja >> peter.mat...@gmail.com >
