OK. Is there anyone trying it out? where is this code ? I can try to help ..
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Mauricio Scheffer <mauricioschef...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
