[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238181#comment-15238181
]
Karl Wright commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
bq. I think we could go back and forth on names all day.
Yeah, but since this is a public API now we have to stop at some point. :-)
bq. For example I like GeodeticPoint for Geo3D and specifying the reference
datum by way of a GeoFieldType. This way it could be used for a Mars prolate
spheroid without having to add a MarsPoint just to change the reference datum
(there are more than 4000 reference systems).
Ok, this raises an interesting possibility -- using the projection as the name.
We could even then have a class derivation hierarchy from which we inherited
some of the needed constants. For example:
EarthCartesianPoint
EarthCartesianMortonPoint
EarthEllipsoidalPoint
EarthSphericalPoint
MarsSphericalPoint
etc.
By convention and for convenience, we could choose to omit the "Earth", so we
would see:
CartesianPoint
CartesianMortonPoint
EllipsoidalPoint
SphericalPoint
MarsSphericalPoint
Then we'd be in good shape for additional projections as time went on.
bq. 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.
Ok, then we'd want names that would be capable of extending naturally into that
space, so we should think about how we'd do that now too. In the above scheme,
this would be the general planetoid advanced API class, which accepted a
general PlanetModel:
PlanetoidEllipsoidalPoint
> 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]
