Yes, the contrib is a MESS. I've been favoring complete re-implementations over porting changes, since contrib has been in such a poor, overlooked state for so long.
I'm not opposed to porting LSP over the Spatial contrib project in Java, though it will might some porting challenges both now, since Lucene versions are different, and as Lucene.NET evolves. It also might not, I'm not familiar with the LSP code. Contrib is just that, contributed software that is not part of the core library, and there will be projects in Java we can't port over. In fact, I think there are .NET specific contrib projects that aren't in java. Either way, my point is that I'm am happy and willing to have LSP included if that's going to wind up being better than Spatial. I think we can use all the help and contributions we can get in Lucene.NET. Of course, we'd need to look and see what is possible, with porting over LSP (not sure if it relies on any version specific features that may not yet be in 3.0.3). So, I say let's go for it, and if you need any help/want to divide work between other committers, we can arrange that, and create issues for it, that is, if the other committers don't object to this. On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > > > Aside from the original port which had many divergences from java, the > > only other issue applied to spatial is LUCENENET-431, which would be easy > > to include. > > > > > That is not correct. LUCENENET-431 was committed, but some fixed from Java > Lucene 3.0.3 are in as well. The whole thing is a mess. > > The reason for this mess is the amount of bugs in the original Java > implementation of Spatial. This is also why it has been deprecated in 3.6: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2599 > > I think the best route at this point is to port LSP aka Spatial4j to .NET > and start using it as the Spatial module for Lucene.NET > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3795 > > This is a Java Lucene 4 feature, but the current spatial implementation is > pretty unisable. > > I'm going to start looking into this, and would definitely appreciate your > input. > > Itamar. >
