I will take a look at the different items and see where I can best apply my skills.
Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:13 PM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > Ok I think I asked the wrong question > Yes, you started the flame war :) > > * What I realy hate in code is the AnonymousXXXX classes inhereted from > JLCA > which make the code impossible to read. > I changed a few in 2.9.4g with replacing the single abstract method with > Func<> or Action<> > > like in FilterCache<T> > from: > protected abstract object MergeDeletes(IndexReader reader, object value); > to: > Func<IndexReader, object, object> MergeDeletes; > > but there are zillions of those with more than 1 abstract method. I still > think of how to replace them with something suitable without diverging > much > from Java. > > > * I am also not satisfied with return parameters like ICollection<>, > IList<>, IEnumerator<> etc. > These should be standardized some way. > > > * Support.Set<T> & Support.Dictionary<K, V> classes are just fast > solutions > to the problem > "java's collections return null when an item does not exist in the > collection whereas .NET throws exception". A better way may be used. > > * missing IEquatable<T>'s > > * making Iterators as real .NET Enumerators > > etc. etc. etc. > > > It seems to be a never ending story. > > > DIGY > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Lombard [mailto:lombardena...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:13 AM > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > Ok I think I asked the wrong question. I am trying to figure out where to > put my time. I was thinking about working on the automated porting > system, > but when I saw the response to the .NET 4.0 discussions I started to > question if that is the right direction. The community seemed to be more > interested in the .NET features. > > The complexity of the automated tool is going to become very high and will > probably end up with a line-for-line style port. So I keep asking my self > is the automated tool worth it. I don't think it is. > > I like the method has been Digy is using for porting the code. So I guess > for me the real question is Digy where did you see 2.9.4g going next and > what do you need help on? > > Scott > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Digy [mailto:digyd...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:20 PM > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? > > > > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
