[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238232#comment-15238232
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
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
{quote}
I don't think it needs to be that complicated. There is no need for geospatial
types to try to tackle non-planet stuff right now. If i want to do some cool
shit with data from mars, its not clear to me how to use geo3d to do that. If
that is an important use case then lets add PlanetPoint for that. Make sure it
really works with that too, e.g. if people working with that stuff compute
distance in meters, then that type should reflect that :)
Let geospatial types be specialized and take advantage of that to simplify and
speed up what they do.
Otherwise, the catch-all should always be to just use a multidimensional
"primitive" type. These already work and the user is an expert so they decide
things like encoding (double, int, float, long, biginteger, whatever). They
support basic operations like points/ranges/sets already without custom code.
{code}
document.add(new IntPoint("my2Dfield", 2, 3));
document.add(new DoublePoint("my3Dfield", 2, 3, 4));
document.add(new IntPoint("my4Dfield", 2, 3, 4, 5));
{code}
In general, i don't think trying to create some taxonomy of all the worlds
problems we could possibly solve is the right way to go about it. Instead just
specialize the ones that matter and keep things simple.
> 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]
