[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238143#comment-15238143
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
I think that ship has already sailed. The decision was made to use WGS84 and
keep the public API as simple as possible.
{quote}
Why did it sail? I argued for Geo3D to have a "typical" *Point type that worked
with users in typical ways (latitude, longitude, meters). This does not prevent
the possibility of a separate e.g. PlanetPoint type that works differently and
has different APIs geared for advanced uses. I do think it would be good to
follow the same structural pattern though, e.g. add methods for common use
cases: distance, shapes, etc: even if the methods are more complex (e.g. take
PlanetModel).
> 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]
