[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15240485#comment-15240485
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-7202:
--------------------------------------
It's a shame to see scant agreement on the naming. :-( Jack, I concur that
"XYZPoint", by itself, loses the needed geo-ness and appears to be some generic
spatial/dimensional, which it certainly is not. Perhaps we shall have such a
field some day and then what?! Guys, can we standardize on "Geo" in the front
of these geodesic (relating to the earth) fields? Thus GeoXYZPoint is way
better than just XYZPoint. And GeoLatLon and Geo... whatever we're calling the
morton one? GeoPoint? Ugh; that name is bad too, these fields we are
discussing are *all* geodesic _point_ fields!
bq. maybe creating {{GeoFieldType extends FieldType}}
+1 to something along those lines; I had the same thought. It might reduce the
desire for a concise name (not a concern of mine). as you'd only need to user
the longer name at the line of construction the instance, in much the same we
create instances of ArrayList to assign to a List.
bq. absorb spatial3d module into spatial
I think it would be great if the Lucene parts of spatial3d (it's the part we're
actually talking about in this issue) move to the spatial module! Not only
does it just seem to fit better in terms of organization, but it might reduce
some pressure/desire for spatial stuff to be in Lucene core? Is anything to be
gained by moving the generic non-Lucene math parts too?
> 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: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
