[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238215#comment-15238215
]
Nicholas Knize commented on LUCENE-7202:
----------------------------------------
bq. but since this is a public API now we have to stop at some point.
I agree, but this supports my point of not forcing the issue? I think it's safe
to keep current names through at least the life of Lucene 6. Deprecation and
refactor can happen at least by the next major release? At that point we'll
likely have a clearer picture and naming may happen naturally.
Just a quick thought on the Cartesian/Spherical/Ellipsoidal naming. We did this
at my last job and the maintenance / code sprawl was a nightmare. But that's
just my opinion from living through it.
> 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]
