[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-480?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13295406#comment-13295406 ]
Prescott Nasser commented on LUCENENET-480: ------------------------------------------- Yes I think we should do this via a symbol #NET35 or some such. > Investigate what needs to happen to make both .NET 3.5 and 4.0 builds possible > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: LUCENENET-480 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-480 > Project: Lucene.Net > Issue Type: Task > Components: Lucene.Net Contrib, Lucene.Net Core, Lucene.Net Demo, > Lucene.Net Test > Affects Versions: Lucene.Net 2.9.4, Lucene.Net 2.9.4g, Lucene.Net 3.0.3 > Reporter: Christopher Currens > > We need to investigate what needs to be done with the source to be able to > support both a .NET 3.5 and 4.0 build. There was some concern from at least > one member of the community ([see > here|http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-lucene-net-dev/201202.mbox/%3C004b01cce111$871f4990$955ddcb0$@fr%3E]) > that we've alienated some of our user base by making such a heavy jump from > 2.0 to 4.0. There are major benefits to using 4.0 over the 2.0-based > runtimes, specifically FAR superior memory management, particularly with the > LOH, where Lucene.NET has had major trouble with in the past. > Based on what has been done with Lucene.NET 3.0.3, we can't (easily) drop > .NET 3.5/3.0 libraries and go back to 2.0. HashSet<T> and ISet<T> is used > extensively in the code, that would be a major blocker to get done. I > suppose it could be possible, but there hasn't been a whole lot of talk about > what runtimes we intend to support. The big change between lucene 2.x and > 3.x for java was also a change in runtimes, that allowed generics and enums > to be used in the base code. We have a similar situation with the API (it's > substantially different, with the addition of properties alone) for this next > version of Lucene.NET, so I think it's reasonable to at least make a > permanent move from 2.0 to 3.5, though that's only my opinion, hasn't been > discussed with the committers. > It seems that supporting 3.5 and 4.0 should be fairly easy, and is a decent > compromise in supporting both a 2.0 and 4.0 runtime. At the very least, we > should try our best to support it. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira