Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

A simple port could be achieved using IKVM, could it not? (
http://www.ikvm.net/ )

If so, what's the point of Lucene.NET?

I don't feel I am missing the point, I feel I am expressing an opinion.

Ciaran

On 1 November 2010 11:30, Robert Jordan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 01.11.2010 10:57, Ciaran Roarty wrote:
>
>> I think Lucene.NET would benefit from being .NET aware and moving to a
>> newer
>> version of the Framework; I would be keen to get involved and do this.
>> There
>> was, however, a dominant view that it should mirror Lucene and this chase
>> after another project was the main thing to achieve. My suspicion is that
>> this approach has been taken because the Lucene.NET community is not
>> defining new approaches to search; it was to get value out of the Lucene
>> library. In effect, we could just use IKVM and get something similar.
>>
>
> You're missing the point. Lucene.NET is "just" a port of Lucene
> with a .NET-like API. The searching expertise is still there where it
> belongs: to the main Lucene project. If you want "new approaches in
> search" then you're looking at the wrong project.
>
>
> Personally, I'd be up for trying to get the latest Lucene version we can (
>> i.e. take the current one ) and turn it into a real .NET version for
>> Framework 4 or 3.5SP1 if required. I think if we identified the core of
>> the
>>
>
> I fail to see any need for .NET 4 or even .NET 3.5. There is only
> one case where .NET 4 could be useful and a couple of other
> cases for .NET 3.5.
>
> Not chasing .NET versions is definitely not the reason why
> Lucene.NET is going back in incubation.
>
> The real reason was pointed out by DIGI: no one stepped out
> for the "dully" work: prepare/publish official releases,
> home page love, interact with the Board, etc.
>
>
> I wouldn't want to be involved in a project that chased Lucene's tail
>> forever.
>>
>
> This is Lucene.NET's goal.
>
> Robert
>
>