I meant the standard IO libraries. They are different enough that the code has to be manually ported. There were some automated tools back when Microsoft introduced .Net, but IIRC they never really worked.
Anyway it's not a big deal, it should be a straightforward job. Testing it thoroughly cross-platform is another thing though. 2009/11/13 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@corp.aol.com> > The javabin format does not have many dependencies. it may have 3-4 > classes an that is it. > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Mauricio Scheffer > <mauricioschef...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nope. It has to be manually ported. Not so much because of the language > > itself but because of differences in the libraries. > > > > > > 2009/11/13 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@corp.aol.com> > > > >> Is there any tool to directly port java to .Net? then we can etxract > >> out the client part of the javabin code and convert it. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Erik Hatcher <erik.hatc...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Has anyone looked into using the javabin response format from .NET > >> (instead > >> > of SolrJ)? > >> > > >> > It's mainly a curiosity. > >> > > >> > How much better could performance/bandwidth/throughput be? How > difficult > >> > would it be to implement some .NET code (C#, I'd guess being the best > >> > choice) to handle this response format? > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Erik > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ----------------------------------------------------- > >> Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com > >> > > > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com >
