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.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: 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:lombardena...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM To: lucene-net-dev@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 -
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
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-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: 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.granr...@thermofisher.com] Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: 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:lombardena...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:58 PM To: lucene-net-dev@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 -
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.**orglucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.orglucene-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.comneal.granr...@thermofisher.com ] Sent: 29 June 2011 20:47 To: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.**orglucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org Cc: lucene-net-dev@incubator.**apache.orglucene-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.**comlombardena...@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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
NHibernate has a much bigger community and more active devs afaict. The proposed changes as I understand them are not about changing class structure or APIs, but merely touch hunks of code and rewrite them to use better .NET practices (yield, generics, LINQ etc). In conjunction with a move to .NET 4.0 this would increase readability, improve GC and boost performance. IMO this doesn't have to be a line-by-line port in order to make porting of patches easy - what digy seem to be really worried about (and he's right). As long as the meaning of the code is clear, it shouldn't be a real problem to apply Java patches to the .NET codebase. And as long as the test suite keeps being thorough, there's really nothing to fear of. On 30/06/2011 20:15, Ayende Rahien wrote: 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
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|linversionId=-1issue Status=allselectedProjectId=12310290reportKey=com.sourcelabs.jira.plugin.r eport.contributions%3AcontributionreportNext=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?
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
A) I don't to want to commit anything thats going to piss alot of people off, B) I don't want to spend time/waste time on modifications that are going to be rejected. What I've learnt from Apache Way is creating a JIRA issue if you are hesitant. If no one answers in a reasonable time(mostly), then commit. DIGY -Original Message- From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 11:58 PM To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed? @Troy, I've already started working towards fixing unit testing issues, and prototyping some things that sure DRY up the testing just so that I can get the tests running on mono. Those changes are currently in a private git repo, however since we don't have a CI, I'm need to make some time to manually test those on at least 3 different Os (windowx, osx, and ubuntu) before putting those back into the 2.9.4g branch. The reason being I need those in working order so that I can do a write up on pulling those from source and at least running the build script to compile everything and run the tests for you. I don't know about everyone else, but thats a starting point I look for when I go to work on something or commit something back. They should make their way back sometime this month. I think the next thing I'll do is put my money where my mouth is, spend time break down the rest of the CI tasks, then seeing how much stuff I can get documented into the wiki. The simple faceted search is a decent starting template. @Digy I agree with the talk, no work. Though coming from the outside in, I still cringe when I make any commits at the moment. (even that little .gitnore file) A) I don't to want to commit anything thats going to piss alot of people off, B) I don't want to spend time/waste time on modifications that are going to be rejected. C) it took a good deal of going through things before I felt comfortable to even making a commit. D) yes I know I just need to get over it and so does everyone else (hence the obsession with the unit tests at the moment). and I think a key to relaying people to get over it, including myself, is to make the point you had more clear across the board: *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. * +1 because that makes feel there is more leadway to experiment and any decent effort will at least go somewhere to live and not be wasted. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
DIGY - Re: Why do I wait.. That's mostly because I intend to make some deep changes, which would make merging the 2.9.4g branch back to trunk difficult. So, it's easier to merge those changes first. Also, I won't have enough time to make my changes until a little way in the future, but probably do have the time to put together another release, so I'll do that first because it fits with my work/life schedule. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: 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
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.comwrote: 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
Michael - If you bring those changes from git into a branch in SVN, we can help with it. It doesn't have to be complete to be committed. :) Regarding A (angering people)/B (being rejected)/C (feeling comfortable)/D (getting over it)... a) Making progress is more important than keeping everyone happy b) Our goal is to accept things, not reject them. That said, if something gets rejected due to quality issues, don't be afraid of that, it's a learning experience for everyone, and it's a good thing. We can work together to get to something everyone is happy with and learn in the process. c) Commit to a branch. Merge when things are right. No one expects branches to build or be finished. It's OK. I get worried when I merge to trunk or when I make a release. But I don't do that until I'm pretty sure it's all legit. d) Best way to get over it is to start doing it I know you probably already realize all of this, but I wanted to respond, so that, in case anyone else out there is struggling with the same set of fears, they can see that fears that prevent action are more problematic than any action they might take without those fears. Thanks, Troy On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Michael Herndon mhern...@wickedsoftware.net wrote: @Troy, I've already started working towards fixing unit testing issues, and prototyping some things that sure DRY up the testing just so that I can get the tests running on mono. Those changes are currently in a private git repo, however since we don't have a CI, I'm need to make some time to manually test those on at least 3 different Os (windowx, osx, and ubuntu) before putting those back into the 2.9.4g branch. The reason being I need those in working order so that I can do a write up on pulling those from source and at least running the build script to compile everything and run the tests for you. I don't know about everyone else, but thats a starting point I look for when I go to work on something or commit something back. They should make their way back sometime this month. I think the next thing I'll do is put my money where my mouth is, spend time break down the rest of the CI tasks, then seeing how much stuff I can get documented into the wiki. The simple faceted search is a decent starting template. @Digy I agree with the talk, no work. Though coming from the outside in, I still cringe when I make any commits at the moment. (even that little .gitnore file) A) I don't to want to commit anything thats going to piss alot of people off, B) I don't want to spend time/waste time on modifications that are going to be rejected. C) it took a good deal of going through things before I felt comfortable to even making a commit. D) yes I know I just need to get over it and so does everyone else (hence the obsession with the unit tests at the moment). and I think a key to relaying people to get over it, including myself, is to make the point you had more clear across the board: *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. * +1 because that makes feel there is more leadway to experiment and any decent effort will at least go somewhere to live and not be wasted. On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Digy digyd...@gmail.com wrote: 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
RE: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
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.comwrote: 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
Re: [Lucene.Net] Is a Lucene.Net Line-by-Line Jave port needed?
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
