On Feb 17, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mario Alejandro M. wrote:
In wonder if the .NET ports around have implemente classes that are
only mirrors of the Java and not are necesary for a sucesfully port to
.NET is this true?
I don't quite understand your question, but the dotLucene project at
Sourceforge
+1
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
In wonder if the .NET ports around have implemente classes that are
only mirrors of the Java and not are necesary for a sucesfully port to
.NET is this true?
--
Mario Alejandro Montoya
MCP
www.solucionesvulcano.com
!Obtenga su sitio Web dinámico!
--
Hi,
> From: Doug Cutting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The only problem would be if someone else felt that the name
> Lucene.Net was their property.
Read the license and look the source code.
Lucene.Net copyrighted to Apache Software Foundation.
Pasha Bizhan
http://lucenedotnet.com
Hi,
> From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> As for Lookout, Beagle, ets, I know for fact that Beagle,
> Ascirum and .Text are using dotLucene, I don't know about
> Lookout. Just do a Google them and you will see.
Lookout use Lucene.Net 1.3.3.1.
Pasha Bizhan
---
On Thursday 17 February 2005 17:14, George Aroush wrote:
> Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene)
+1
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
George Aroush wrote:
Any thoughts on Lucene.Net/dotLucene package name are welcome.
I agree that Lucene.Net is a better name. It's more consistent with
Lucene Java and Lucene4c, the names for other ports of Lucene. I think
it's okay to reclaim the name of an abandonded project, especially if
t
George Aroush wrote:
Hi Garrett,
Thanks for your support.
No, the port of 1.4.0 and 1.4.3 of dotLucene is from the ground up and has
nothing to do with Lucene.Net 1.3. The logs on SourceForge.net shows this.
Excellent. I'm glad to hear it.
The conflicting question that I have is, Lucene.Net is a
Mario,
I don't know whether there are some legal requirements that dictate
where the license should go. Apache projects typically include the
license in the code.
On a somewhat related note - if you would like your Lucene port to
Delphi to join Lucene project in the future, please keep in mind t
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know that I sent email to Plucene, CLucene, and
PyLucene developers and invited them to follow the steps of dotLucene
and Lucene4C and join Lucene at ASF.
Hopefully we'll see their emails on this list soon. I will also email
Lupy developers and see if they are still
On Thursday 17 February 2005 12:11, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the
> lucene4c codebase.
>
> +1 from me.
+1
--
http://www.danielnaber.de
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAI
I prefer dotLucene, because it will be less confusing for people new to
the project. In Lucene in Action I had to explicitly mention a dead
Lucene.NET project on SourceForge, so readers wouldn't mix it with the
other one called. ah, see, I don't know which one was dead and
which one was alive.
+1
Otis
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lucene.Net has my +1.
>
> Other PMC members please cast your vote also.
>
> As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is
> not
> based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions
> Lookout, Beagle, a
Hi Erik,
Regarding Garrett's concern, I responded to him regarding, so therefore
isn't any issue.
As for Lookout, Beagle, ets, I know for fact that Beagle, Ascirum and .Text
are using dotLucene, I don't know about Lookout. Just do a Google them and
you will see.
As for the name of the project,
I'm porting Lucene to Delphi, based in DotLucene. I have setup the
proyect in http://sourceforge.net/projects/mutis/.
I don't full understand what i can do about the license. What are the
limitations.
Also, i want to know if can do this in the code:
unit PhraseScorer;
//Read the license in Lice
+1
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lucene.Net has my +1.
Other PMC members please cast your vote also.
As for Garrett's concerns, it is my understanding that dotLucene is not
based the previous Lucene.NET codebase. Though George mentions
Lookout, Beagle, and some other projects - are these projects using the
dotLucene codebas
+1
Doug
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Garrett,
Thanks for your support.
No, the port of 1.4.0 and 1.4.3 of dotLucene is from the ground up and has
nothing to do with Lucene.Net 1.3. The logs on SourceForge.net shows this.
The conflicting question that I have is, Lucene.Net is a better name then
dotLucene. On SourceForge.Net we
George Aroush wrote:
Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene)
George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0) rationale
Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java
to C#. The port
Proposal for new project Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene)
George Aroush -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(0) rationale
Lucene.Net (aka dotLucene) is a source code port of Jakarta Lucene from Java
to C#. The port is a one-to-one
+1
On Feb 17, 2005, at 6:11 AM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the
lucene4c codebase.
+1 from me.
Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread.
Erik
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
D
+1
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the
> lucene4c codebase.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread.
>
> Erik
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Cliff Sc
The Incubator requires the Lucene PMC vote on whether to accept the
lucene4c codebase.
+1 from me.
Other Lucene PMC members - please cast your vote on this thread.
Erik
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: February 17, 2005 5:12:36 AM EST
To:
Subject:
24 matches
Mail list logo
