There is another port - lucene++ - that I've read is the reason CLucene was abandoned. It targets compatibility with Lucene 3 vs CLucene's targeting of Lucene 2. It's on github, and its last commit was ~9 months ago. At least it's better than 2013!
There's also Apache Lucy, which is a "loose C" port of Lucene that is specifically targeting languages that require bindings. It's active and up to date, based on its current git activity. I have no idea if any of them are more feature-complete than CLucene. If Xapian support really is present in HEAD and is decent and stable, then my complaint would be moot - if we could get a 1.8 release moving. If those things fail, my complaint remains lodged. --Greg On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM, DM Smith <dmsm...@crosswire.org> wrote: > When I contributed to Lucene (Java version) there were folks there who > lurked on the mailing lists that were part of the C port. > > Anyway, I mention it as searching those lists or signing up and asking > questions might give appropriate insight. > > DM > > > On Feb 21, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Greg Hellings <greg.helli...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I know it's been mentioned and hinted at in the past, but I wanted to - > again - lodge a complaint regarding the inertia of CLucene use in the > engine. > > > > CLucene's last release, and last git commit on SourceForge was in 2013. > It has had none of the language-specific updates that Lucene has generated > upstream which is one of the best parts of the Lucene ecosystem. > > > > It has always suffered from GCC-on-Windows specific compile bugs, > especially related to uses of pthread, and since upstream went defunct now > 4 years ago there has been no movement to fix them correctly. Fixes need to > be maintained by downstream teams. Even the native Linux packaging depends > on a number of patches just to be able to compile, because upstream has no > interest in even putting out a usable product. > > > > With the recent release of GCC 7, CLucene has become - once again - a > FTBFS package on MinGW/Windows targets. This is going to necessitate > dropping the package from the MinGW builds of Sword that I maintain for > Fedora which will make future releases of Xiphos for Windows incapable of > offering Lucene based searching. > > > > Is there any whiff of hope that we might be willing to move off of > depending on CLucene for advanced search support and onto a project that > has any amount of vitality? > > > > --Greg > > _______________________________________________ > > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page > > > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page >
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page