Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap
Well, I'm technically in Berkeley I'm hoping it gets sunny soon, though. I guess I can't complain though, it's warmer here and its not raining like it is in Portland.:) So, for the Contrib section, I've ported: * Contrib.Analyzers * Contrib.FastVectorHighlighter * Contrib.Queries * Contrib.Regex (there's an issue with one of the tests, it's been marked as ignored, has to do with a differences in the regex engines) * Contrib.Snowball I updated Contrib.Core/Contrib.SimpleFacetedSearch to build, I couldn't find anything to port for them, I think they're .NET specific. So as a list of what needs to be done in contrib would be: * make sure DistributedSearch builds and tests pass * Port Similarity * Port SpellChecker * Port WordNet * (optional) Port other contrib packages from java (some can't be easily done) For the branch as a whole, I want to implement the Dispose pattern properly and change all classes that follow the Java iterator pattern, to IEnumerable/IEnumerators. The code would still be easy to port even after these changes and it would be a big step in making the project fit in better with everyday .NET development. As it is, I've been using Extension methods to "convert" a TermEnum to an actual enumerator, which is just a wrapper class that implments IEnumerable, but it's a huge pain and really, probably shouldn't have been implemented as an exact port to begin with. Either way, I'd like that to be changed. I also agree that getting the library to be CLS compliant is a good goal, but only in terms of naming. I don't think the rest of it is important, at least at this point. Off the top of my head, besides the example you mentioned, ScoreDocs has a obsoleted public field topDocs and public property TopDocs. I supposed to be on vacation, so I'm trying to keep work I do to a minimum. :) If you want to make JIRA issues for this you can, otherwise I will do it when I get back on Monday. Thanks, Christopher On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Prescott Nasser wrote: > > Welcome to SF! > > > > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:05:16 -0800 > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > Yes, a lot of it is done. Porting highlighter is partially done, not > > committed, because it relies on the memory contrive package in java, > which > > I've also ported, but the tests fail. The last contrib project I've > worked > > on was snowball. If you look at the commit log, I've tried to mention > what > > contrive I worked on. Those and highlighter/memory are all I've done, the > > rest is up for grabs. > > > > I just finished a 12 hour drive from Portland to San Francisco, so I > don't > > know how legible the above is. I'll take another look at what I've done > > and what needs to be done tomorrow or so, but I think its pretty > accurate. > > > > - Christopher > > On Nov 23, 2011 10:53 PM, "Prescott Nasser" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Something else we need to consider is that "topScore" and "TopScore" is > > > perfectly valid for a function and field name in the same class, but it > > > will never be CLS compliant, and VB wouldn't work with Lucene.Net as > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:03 -0800 > > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > > > > > Regarding the short term goals that Scott mentioned, I agree. I think > > > over > > > > the past 9 months that we've been active, it's time we see what we > need > > > to > > > > do to graduate from the incubator. Also, 3.0.3 is actually close to a > > > > release, *depending* on how we feel about the Contrib libraries, > which > > > I'll > > > > discuss in a separate thread. > > > > > > > > Scott didn't mention directly, but I think it would be good to port > the > > > 3.x > > > > branch past 3.0.3. Lucene has released 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 in > addition > > > > to 3.0.3. Whether this means we release all those versions, or just > port > > > > up to 3.4 and just release it, that's something we'd all have to > agree > > > > upon. I want to get a 3.x branch up to where Java's is. Also, > deciding if > > > > porting 4.0 can happen at the same time as 3.x is worked on and how > to go > > > > about it, particularly how far we want to diverge from java. Either > way, > > > I > > > > think maintaining both 3.x and 4.x would be a good thing for the > > > community > > > > to have. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Scott Lombard < > lombardena...@gmail.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > You're right about putting together a higher level discussion. > Here are > > > > > the > > > > > road map items I see. I am interested in other have to say. > > > > > > > > > > None of the items I have listed are contigent on the other so they > can > > > be > > > >
RE: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap
Welcome to SF! > Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:05:16 -0800 > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > Yes, a lot of it is done. Porting highlighter is partially done, not > committed, because it relies on the memory contrive package in java, which > I've also ported, but the tests fail. The last contrib project I've worked > on was snowball. If you look at the commit log, I've tried to mention what > contrive I worked on. Those and highlighter/memory are all I've done, the > rest is up for grabs. > > I just finished a 12 hour drive from Portland to San Francisco, so I don't > know how legible the above is. I'll take another look at what I've done > and what needs to be done tomorrow or so, but I think its pretty accurate. > > - Christopher > On Nov 23, 2011 10:53 PM, "Prescott Nasser" wrote: > > > > > Something else we need to consider is that "topScore" and "TopScore" is > > perfectly valid for a function and field name in the same class, but it > > will never be CLS compliant, and VB wouldn't work with Lucene.Net as is. > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:03 -0800 > > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > > > Regarding the short term goals that Scott mentioned, I agree. I think > > over > > > the past 9 months that we've been active, it's time we see what we need > > to > > > do to graduate from the incubator. Also, 3.0.3 is actually close to a > > > release, *depending* on how we feel about the Contrib libraries, which > > I'll > > > discuss in a separate thread. > > > > > > Scott didn't mention directly, but I think it would be good to port the > > 3.x > > > branch past 3.0.3. Lucene has released 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 in addition > > > to 3.0.3. Whether this means we release all those versions, or just port > > > up to 3.4 and just release it, that's something we'd all have to agree > > > upon. I want to get a 3.x branch up to where Java's is. Also, deciding if > > > porting 4.0 can happen at the same time as 3.x is worked on and how to go > > > about it, particularly how far we want to diverge from java. Either way, > > I > > > think maintaining both 3.x and 4.x would be a good thing for the > > community > > > to have. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Scott Lombard > >wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > You're right about putting together a higher level discussion. Here are > > > > the > > > > road map items I see. I am interested in other have to say. > > > > > > > > None of the items I have listed are contigent on the other so they can > > be > > > > done in parallel or out of order. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Complete the release of 2.9.4 > > > > 2) Create and release 3.0.3 > > > > > > > > 3) Graduate from the incubator > > > > 4) Document a porting process that the community can reference. > > > > 5) Port 4.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:28 AM > > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > > > > > > > While much of the content in this thread is valid and is > > > > > important, especially concerns, pain points, and > > > > > implementation details... we've gotten way off topic. > > > > > > > > > > road map != implementation details. We should keep to a much > > > > > a higher level discussion to get this knocked out. > > > > > > > > > > Lets outline the roadmap, put it in a wiki page. > > > > > > > > > > Then discuss how to go about each major milestone in separate > > > > > threads to discuss implementation details. Or at least let > > > > > the people who are going to work on that particular milestone > > > > > publish their intentions to keep everyone else informed since > > > > > we're currently in a do-ocracy like state. > > > > > > > > > > And by all means, discuss the next immediate milestones first > > > > > so people who want to dive into that can proceed. > > > > > > > > > > So what are the next two major milestones? And from a higher > > > > > level perspective what are the major items that deem those > > > > > milestones complete? > > > > > > > > > > What would be the the next 3 ideal milestones after the first > > > > > two? And what would be the intentions for those milestones to > > > > > accomplish? > > > > > > > > > > - Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > > > currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Next to impossible/really, really hard. There are just some things > > > > > > that don't map quite right. Sharpen is great, but it seems > > > > > you need > > > > > > to code written in a way that makes it easi
RE: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap
Yes, a lot of it is done. Porting highlighter is partially done, not committed, because it relies on the memory contrive package in java, which I've also ported, but the tests fail. The last contrib project I've worked on was snowball. If you look at the commit log, I've tried to mention what contrive I worked on. Those and highlighter/memory are all I've done, the rest is up for grabs. I just finished a 12 hour drive from Portland to San Francisco, so I don't know how legible the above is. I'll take another look at what I've done and what needs to be done tomorrow or so, but I think its pretty accurate. - Christopher On Nov 23, 2011 10:53 PM, "Prescott Nasser" wrote: > > Something else we need to consider is that "topScore" and "TopScore" is > perfectly valid for a function and field name in the same class, but it > will never be CLS compliant, and VB wouldn't work with Lucene.Net as is. > > > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:03 -0800 > > From: currens.ch...@gmail.com > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > Regarding the short term goals that Scott mentioned, I agree. I think > over > > the past 9 months that we've been active, it's time we see what we need > to > > do to graduate from the incubator. Also, 3.0.3 is actually close to a > > release, *depending* on how we feel about the Contrib libraries, which > I'll > > discuss in a separate thread. > > > > Scott didn't mention directly, but I think it would be good to port the > 3.x > > branch past 3.0.3. Lucene has released 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 in addition > > to 3.0.3. Whether this means we release all those versions, or just port > > up to 3.4 and just release it, that's something we'd all have to agree > > upon. I want to get a 3.x branch up to where Java's is. Also, deciding if > > porting 4.0 can happen at the same time as 3.x is worked on and how to go > > about it, particularly how far we want to diverge from java. Either way, > I > > think maintaining both 3.x and 4.x would be a good thing for the > community > > to have. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Scott Lombard >wrote: > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > You're right about putting together a higher level discussion. Here are > > > the > > > road map items I see. I am interested in other have to say. > > > > > > None of the items I have listed are contigent on the other so they can > be > > > done in parallel or out of order. > > > > > > > > > 1) Complete the release of 2.9.4 > > > 2) Create and release 3.0.3 > > > > > > 3) Graduate from the incubator > > > 4) Document a porting process that the community can reference. > > > 5) Port 4.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mhern...@wickedsoftware.net] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:28 AM > > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] Roadmap > > > > > > > > While much of the content in this thread is valid and is > > > > important, especially concerns, pain points, and > > > > implementation details... we've gotten way off topic. > > > > > > > > road map != implementation details. We should keep to a much > > > > a higher level discussion to get this knocked out. > > > > > > > > Lets outline the roadmap, put it in a wiki page. > > > > > > > > Then discuss how to go about each major milestone in separate > > > > threads to discuss implementation details. Or at least let > > > > the people who are going to work on that particular milestone > > > > publish their intentions to keep everyone else informed since > > > > we're currently in a do-ocracy like state. > > > > > > > > And by all means, discuss the next immediate milestones first > > > > so people who want to dive into that can proceed. > > > > > > > > So what are the next two major milestones? And from a higher > > > > level perspective what are the major items that deem those > > > > milestones complete? > > > > > > > > What would be the the next 3 ideal milestones after the first > > > > two? And what would be the intentions for those milestones to > > > > accomplish? > > > > > > > > - Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Christopher Currens < > > > > currens.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Next to impossible/really, really hard. There are just some things > > > > > that don't map quite right. Sharpen is great, but it seems > > > > you need > > > > > to code written in a way that makes it easily convertible, > > > > and I don't > > > > > see the folks at Lucene changing their coding style to do that. > > > > > > > > > > An example: 3.0.3 changes classes that inherited from > > > > util.Parameter, > > > > > to java enums. Java enums are more similar to classes than > > > > they are in C#. > > > > > They can have methods, fields, etc. I wound up converting > > > > them into > > > > > enums with extension methods and/or st
