[sword-devel] Lucene Complaint

[Greg Hellings]

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 <dmsmith at 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.hellings at 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 at 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 at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20170221/a7a7cc57/attachment.html>