No, it wouldn't.I haven't tried py4j, just looked at docs and the key word I see is 'dynamic'. We used dynamic wrappers (I don't remember exact names, that was too long ago, but the problem using JNI that way is poor performance. JCC, in contrast, generates wrappers that provide outstanding performance. This is what I love it for.
It's not a pain, I should say. Quite easy if you clearly understand what it does :) I would move it to P3 itself, but I have no enough time and P2 support still gives 3.5 years for that :) Alexander. 2016-07-01 23:42 GMT+07:00 Greg Bowyer <gbow...@fastmail.co.uk>: > Would it make more sense to move to py4j like spark uses. JCC is awesome > tech but installing it is a pain > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, at 09:35 AM, Alexander Yaworsky wrote: >> Well, this bothered me (not a dev but fixed some of your bugs locally >> long long ago, why didn't send patches is another story). Here's my >> opinion, as a user. 1. Be in sync with lucene is a must. 2. Be in sync >> with python is a must. Therefore, >> >> > Question: What should happen to PyLucene now? >> > >> > [ ] I’m happy with the last 4.x release, no need for new releases >> > [ ] Please, a new 6.x release (but I can’t contribute) >> > [ ] I’ll help make a new release happen, if I get some help! >> > [X] Only care about the JCC part >> > [X] Close down the sub project -- IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN >> > [ ] Don’t care. I’m no longer a user >> > [X] Other: Move JCC to P3 >> >> Actually, the brilliant part of this project is JCC. In a company I >> work for we still use it to utilize Java libraries from python. This >> is the fastest solution and this sub-project must exist separately >> imo. We do not use Lucene since 00's btw. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Alexander.
