[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15236581#comment-15236581
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
Less modules not more. I already explained how modules are just as confusing as
bad naming (bad packaging all around). I don't think we should create a module
for a single public class.
{quote}
Until we determine elevation-specific functionality, 3D is a meaningful moniker
{quote}
Ok then what are we doing here? Because e.g. LatLonPoint is a very simple name,
usable to the layman. Putting this in a package with a complex name like
spatial-planar hurts it, when it was never confusing to begin with :)
> Come up with a comprehensive proposal for naming spatial modules and
> technologies
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7202
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: modules/sandbox, modules/spatial, modules/spatial3d
> Affects Versions: master
> Reporter: Karl Wright
>
> There are three different spatial implementations circulating at the moment,
> and nobody seems happy with the naming of them. For each implementation
> strategy, we need both a module name and a descriptive technology name that
> we can use to distinguish one from the other. I would expect the following
> people to have an interest in this process: [~rcmuir], [~dsmiley],
> [~mikemccand], etc.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
