Michael, You interpret the report as "whoever commits code wins"? But when I look at it, I see "a lof of talk, no work". .Net community is not interested in contributing. I really don't understand what hinders people to work on Lucene.Net. As I did for 2.9.4g, grab the code, do whatever you want on it and submit back. If it doesn't fit to the project's direction it can still find a place in contrib or in branch. All of the approaches can live side by side happily in the Lucene.Net repository.
Troy, I also don't understand why do you wait for 2.9.4g? It is a *branch* and has nothing to do with the trunk. It need not be an offical release and can live in branch as a PoC. As a result, I got bored to listen to "this should be done that way". What I want to see is "I did it that way, should we continue with this". DIGY -----Original Message----- From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:47 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? Michael, I agree with everything you said. My point in saying "whoever commits code wins" was to illustrate the reality of how and why the project has the current form. Building consensus is difficult. It is an essential first step before we can do something like make a list of bit-sized pieces of work that others can work on. This is why my real message of "Let's find a way to accommodate both" is so important. It allows us to build consensus, so that we can settle on a direction and structure our work. Until we accomplish that, it really is "whoever commits code wins", and that is an unhealthy and unmaintainable way to operate. >From a technical perspective, your statements about the unit tests are completely accurate. They really need a LOT of reworking. That's the very first step before making any significant changes. Part of the problem is that the tests themselves are not well written. The other part is that the Lucene object model was not designed for testability, and it makes writing good tests more difficult, and certain tests might not be possible. It will be difficult to write good unit tests without re-structuring. The biggest issue is the use of abstract classes with base behaviour vs interfaces or fully abstracted classes. Makes mocking tough. This is the direction I was going when I started the Lucere project. I'd like to start in on that work after the 2.9.4g release. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Michael Herndon < mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > I'd say that is all the more reasons that we need to work smarter and not > harder. I'd also say thats a good reason to make sure we build consensus > rather than just saying whoever commits code wins. > > And its a damn good reason to focus on the effort of growing the number of > contributors and lowing the barrier to submitting patches, breaking things > down into pieces that people would feel confident to work on without > being overwhelmed by the complexity of Lucene.Net. > > There is a pretty big gap between Lucene 2.9.x to Lucene 4.0 and the > internals and index formats are significantly different including nixing > the > current vint file format and using byte[] array slices for Terms instead of > char[]. > > So while porting 1 to 1 while require less knowledge or thought, its most > likely going to require more hours of work. And Its definitely not going to > guarantee the stability of the code or that its great code. > > I'd have to say that its not as stable as most would believe at the moment. > > Most of the tests avoid anything that remotely looks like it knows about > the > DRY principle and there is a static constructor in the core test case that > throws an exception if it doesn't find an environment variable "TEMP" which > will fail 90% of the tests and nunit will be unable to give you a clear > reason why. Just to name a few issues I came across working towards > getting > Lucene.Net into CI. I haven't even started really digging in under the > covers of the code yet. > > So my suggestion is to chew on this a bit more and build consensus, avoid > fracturing people into sides. Be open to reservations and concerns that > others have and continue to address them. > > - Michael > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Although there are a lot of people using Lucene.Net, this is our > > contribution report for the past 5 years. > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ConfigureReport.jspa?atl_token=A5KQ-2Q > > > > > AV-T4JA-FDED|3204f7e696067a386144705075c074e991db2a2b|lin&versionId=-1&issue > > > > > Status=all&selectedProjectId=12310290&reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r > > eport.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next > > > > > > DIGY > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ayende Rahien [mailto:aye...@ayende.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:16 PM > > To: Rory Plaire; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > > As someone from the nhibernate project > > We stopped following hibernate a while ago, and haven't regretted it > > We have mire features, less bugs and better code base > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone From: Rory Plaire > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 19:58 > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > I don't want to drag this out much longer, but I am curious with people > who > > hold the "line-by-line" sentiment - are you NHibernate users? > > > > -r > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Noel Lysaght <lysag...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Can I just plug in my bit and say I agree 100% with what Moray has > > outlined > > > below. > > > > > > If we move away from the line by line port then over time we'll loose > out > > > on the momentum that is Lucene and the improvements that they make. > > > It is only if the Lucene.NET community has expertise in search, a > deep > > > knowledge of the project and the community can guarantee that the > > knowledge > > > will survive members coming and going should such a consideration be > > give. > > > > > > When Lucene.NET has stood on it's feet for a number of years after it > has > > > moved out of Apache incubation should consideration be given to > > abandoning > > a > > > line by line port. > > > By all means extend and wrap the libraries in .NET equivalents and .NET > > > goodness like LINQ (we do this internally in our company at the > moment); > > but > > > leave the core of the project on a line by line port. > > > > > > Just my tu-pence worth. > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > Noel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Moray McConnachie > > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:25 AM > > > > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org< > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > > > Cc: > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org< > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > needed? > > > > > > I don't think I'm as hard core on this as Neal, but remember: the > > > history of the Lucene.NET project is that all the intellectual work, > all > > > the understanding of search, all the new features come from the Lucene > > > Java folks. Theirs is an immensely respected project, and I trust them > > > to add new features that will be well-tested and well-researched, and > to > > > have a decent roadmap which I can trust they will execute on. > > > > > > Now I know there's been an influx of capable developers to Lucene.NET > > > who are ready, willing and (I'm going to assume) able to add a lot more > > > value in a generic .NET implementation as they change it. But it'll > take > > > a while before I trust a .NET dedicated framework which is > significantly > > > diverged from Java in the way I do the line-by-line version. And at > what > > > stage is it not just not a line-by-line port, but not a port at all? > > > > > > At the same time, I recognise that if this project is going to > continue, > > > and attract good developers, it has to change in this direction. > > > > > > So that said, I can see why a line-by-line port might not be > > > sustainable. And most people don't need it. But most of us using Lucene > > > in production systems do need a system that we can trust and rely on. > So > > > let me chime in with someone else's plea, to keep the general structure > > > close to Lucene, to keep the same general objects and inheritance > > > set-up, and to keep the same method names, even if you add other > methods > > > and classes to provide additional functionality. ABSOLUTELY the same > > > file formats. End users benefit a lot from a high degree of similarity, > > > with good documentation and help being available from the Java > > > community. > > > > > > Yours, > > > Moray > > > ------------------------------**------- > > > Moray McConnachie > > > Director of IT +44 1865 261 600 > > > Oxford Analytica http://www.oxan.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Granroth, Neal V. > > [mailto:neal.granroth@**thermofisher.com<neal.granr...@thermofisher.com> > > > ] > > > Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 > > > To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org< > > lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org> > > > Cc: > > lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.org< > lucene-net-...@incubator.apache.org> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > needed? > > > > > > This is has been discussed many times. > > > Lucene.NET is not valid, the code cannot be trusted, if it is not a > > > line-by-line port. It ceases to be Lucene. > > > > > > - Neal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Scott Lombard > > [mailto:lombardenator@gmail.**com<lombardena...@gmail.com> > > > ] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.**org < > lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > >; > > > lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**org <lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > > > > > Subject: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > After the large community response about moving the code base from .Net > > > 2.0 to Net 4.0 I am trying to figure out what is the need for a > > > line-by-line port. Starting with Digy's excellent work on the > > > conversion to generics a priority of the 2.9.4g release is the 2 > > > packages would not be interchangeable. So faster turnaround from a > java > > > release won't matter to non line-by-line users they will have to wait > > > until the updates are made to the non line-by-line code base. > > > > > > > > > > > > My question is there really a user base for the line-by-line port? > > > Anyone have a comment? > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > Disclaimer > > > > > > This message and any attachments are confidential and/or privileged. If > > > this has been sent to you in error, please do not use, retain or > disclose > > > them, and contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > > > > Oxford Analytica Ltd > > > Registered in England: No. 1196703 > > > 5 Alfred Street, Oxford > > > United Kingdom, OX1 4EH > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >
