> I've add a Paths Class under the Lucene.Net.Tests Util folder Since it is a Lucene.Net specific code, may "Support" be a better place? DIGY
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:53 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? @Rory, Jira in the past had the ability to create sub tasks or convert a current task to a sub task. I'm guessing that apache's jira should be able to do that. @All, I've add a Paths Class under the Lucene.Net.Tests Util folder (feel free to rename, refactor as long as the tests still work) to help with working with paths in general. This should help with forming paths relative to the temp directory or the project root. NUnit's Shadow Copy tends to throw people off when trying to get the path of the current assembly being tested to build up a relative path, the Path class should help with that. - Michael On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rory Plaire <codekai...@gmail.com> wrote: > My thinking is just a separate ticket for each one. This makes the work > easier to manage and gives a better sense about how much work is left as > well as makes it easier to prioritize independent issues. We could link all > the sub-issues to a single task / feature / whatever (that is, if JIRA has > that capability). > > -r > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Michael Herndon < > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > > > I think whatever makes sense to do. > > > > possibly create one jira for now with a running list that can be modified > > and possibly as people pull from that list, cross things off or create a > > separate ticket that links back to to the main one. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Rory Plaire <codekai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > @Michael - > > > > > > Should that list be in JIRA? It would be easier to manage, I think... > > > > > > If yes, I'll happily do it. > > > > > > -r > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Michael Herndon < > > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > * need to document what the build script does. whut grammerz? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Michael Herndon < > > > > mhern...@wickedsoftware.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > @Rory, @All, > > > > > > > > > > The only tickets I currently have for those is LUCENE-419, > LUCENE-418 > > > > > > > > > > 418, I should be able to push into the 2.9.4g branch tonight. > 419 > > is > > > a > > > > > long term goal and not as important as getting the tests fixed, of > > have > > > > the > > > > > tests broken down into what is actually a unit test, functional > test, > > > > perf > > > > > or long running test. I can get into more why it needs to be done. > > > > > > > > > > I'll also need to make document the what build script currently > does > > on > > > > the > > > > > wiki & and make a few notes about testing, like using the > > RAMDirectory, > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > Things that need to get done or even be discussed. > > > > > * There needs to be a running list of things to do/not to do with > > > > testing. > > > > > I don't know if this goes in a jira or do we keep a running list on > > the > > > > wiki > > > > > or site for people to pick up and help with. > > > > > * Tests need to run on mono and not Fail (there is a good deal of > > > > failing > > > > > tests on mono, mostly due to the temp directory have the C:\ in the > > > > path). > > > > > * Assert.Throw<ExceptionType>() needs to be used instead of > > Try/Catch > > > > > Assert.Fail. ** > > > > > * File & Path combines to the temp directory need helper methods, > > > > > * e,g, having this in a hundred places is bad new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > System.IO.FileInfo(System.IO.Path.Combine(Support.AppSettings.Get("tempDir", > > > > > ""), "testIndex")); > > > > > * We should still be testing deprecated methods, but we need to > use > > > > #pragma > > > > > warning disable/enable 0618 for testing those. otherwise compiler > > > > warnings > > > > > are too numerous to be anywhere near helpful. > > > > > * We should only be using deprecated methods in places where they > > are > > > > > being explicitly tested, other tests that need that functionality > in > > > > order > > > > > to validate those tests should be re factored to use methods that > are > > > not > > > > > deprecated. > > > > > * Identify code that could be abstracted into test utility > classes. > > > > > * Infrastructure Validation tests need to be made, anything that > > seems > > > > > like infrastructure. e.g. does the temp directory exist, does the > > > > folders > > > > > that the tests use inside the temp directory exist, can we > read/write > > > to > > > > > those folders. (if a ton of tests fail due to the file system, we > > > should > > > > be > > > > > able to point out that it was due to permissions or missing > folders, > > > > files, > > > > > etc). > > > > > * Identify what classes need an interface, abstract class or > > inherited > > > > in > > > > > order to create testing mocks. (once those classes are created, > they > > > > should > > > > > be documented in the wiki). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** Asset.Throws needs to replace stuff like the following. We > should > > > also > > > > > be checking the messages for exceptions and make sure they make > sense > > > and > > > > > can help users fix isses if the exceptions are aimed at the library > > > > users. > > > > > try > > > > > { > > > > > d = DateTools.StringToDate("97"); // no date > > > > > Assert.Fail(); > > > > > } > > > > > catch (System.FormatException e) > > > > > { > > > > > /* expected exception */ > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Rory Plaire < > codekai...@gmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> So, veering towards action - are there concrete tasks written up > > > > anywhere > > > > >> for the unit tests? If a poor schlep like me wanted to dig in and > > > start > > > > to > > > > >> improve them, where would I get the understanding of what is good > > and > > > > what > > > > >> needs help? > > > > >> > > > > >> -r > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Digy <digyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > I can not say I like this approach, but till we find an > automated > > > > >> way(with > > > > >> > good results), it seems to be the only way we can use. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > DIGY > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -----Original Message----- > > > > >> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > > > > >> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:43 AM > > > > >> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port > > > > needed? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Scott - > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The idea of the automated port is still worth doing. Perhaps it > > > makes > > > > >> sense > > > > >> > for someone more passionate about the line-by-line idea to do > that > > > > work? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I would say, focus on what makes sense to you. Being productive, > > > > >> regardless > > > > >> > of the specific direction, is what will be most valuable. Once > you > > > > >> start, > > > > >> > others will join and momentum will build. That is how these > things > > > > work. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I like DIGY's approach too, but the problem with it is that it > is > > a > > > > >> > never-ending manual task. The theory behind the automated port > is > > > that > > > > >> it > > > > >> > may reduce the manual work. It is complicated, but once it's > built > > > and > > > > >> > works, it will save a lot of future development hours. If it's > > built > > > > in > > > > >> a > > > > >> > sufficiently general manner, it could be useful for other > project > > > like > > > > >> > Lucene.Net that want to automate a port from Java to C#. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > It might make sense for that to be a separate project from > > > Lucene.Net > > > > >> > though. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -T > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Scott Lombard < > > > > lombardena...@gmail.com > > > > >> > >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------**--------------------------- > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
