[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15238279#comment-15238279
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7202:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
These would not quite be the same as the classes we have today, because we'd
need to choose generic units rather than build in earth radius, etc. But they'd
be essentially the same. On top of those, we could build other classes
representing specific models that were heavily used, and name them by
projection:
{quote}
Then there is literally no need to have these classes. Lets not add more
classes, I don't see the need for any more classes.
Think about it this way: at the basic level, why have spatial classes at all?
User can just use a FloatPoint or DoublePoint or LongPoint in 1/2/3 dimensions
themselves.
Then just think about where we can do better and make things easier: and we
should have exactly those (and no other) classes. We already have a generic
solution: those are the primitive types and primitive types have been proven to
be great generic solutions for many years. We don't need more abstractions.
I give up on the issue though, this is just making spatial harder to use.
Instead of painting a bikeshed for one bike (which could be to fix a specific
name of ONE thing to be less confusing), this is trying to design a bikeshed
that holds a whole shit ton of bikes, a lot of which we do not need.
> 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]
