<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>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!<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>I have no idea if any of them are more feature-complete than CLucene.<br><br></div>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.<br><br></div>--Greg<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:36 PM, DM Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmsmith@crosswire.org" target="_blank">dmsmith@crosswire.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">When I contributed to Lucene (Java version) there were folks there who lurked on the mailing lists that were part of the C port.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I mention it as searching those lists or signing up and asking questions might give appropriate insight.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
DM<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Greg Hellings <<a href="mailto:greg.hellings@gmail.com">greg.hellings@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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?<br>
><br>
> --Greg<br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
sword-devel mailing list: <a href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.crosswire.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a><br>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>