[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238113#comment-15238113
]
Karl Wright commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
bq. Seems like non Lucene committers will be totally confused for when to use
one over another?
That's why you'd want some kind of hint maybe in the naming. But really what
you want is javadoc. If we had a completely orthogonal API then it would imply
both identical functionality and identical capabilities, and that's not the
case.
I think the current approach of having similar (but not identical) API's and a
single public implementation class is a pretty strong one. I'd just want to
add more javadoc to each one describing why you'd want to use it and what the
tradeoffs are.
> 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]
