Let's just do it in Solr directly. I like the jar idea for JTS. We just need more committers to contribute and support the people doing the work.
Bill On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >> If we do elect for option A, I would also suggest we delete the >> spatial contrib (in 4.0) and have solr depend on the external .jar -- >> this way lucene users would have what they need directly with the >> external .jar, and solr users would get lots of fancy new stuff >> off-the-shelf. > > > At the end of the day, Solr only uses a few methods in the Lucene contrib: > the geohash stuff and a few other distance utils (some static methods that I > moved from Solr down to Lucene). That's about it. Everything else is just > FieldTypes and function queries (the tier stuff is broken b/c of the > sinusoidal projection impl. and I didn't see a need for the geometry stuff). > If we move function queries to modules, those utils could just be hidden in > there (or they could just be put in Solr for that matter if function queries > stay where they are) and there would be no need for any external dependency. > Then, there is no spatial package at all and anyone who wishes to work on > Spatial can go do it in the proposed external project if they need anything > beyond point search. > > That being said, a separate package/project is what LocalLucene/LocalSolr > was. You are of course free to do as you wish, but to me things that are > first order supported by the community seem to stick better than those that > don't and have the benefit of our extensive testing framework as well as > resources, especially something as popular as spatial. I think, though, at > the end of the day, you are just going to see, once again, a forking as > people will likely be confused about where to contribute. Some will continue > to contribute to Lucene/Solr b/c that is what they are working on (b/c they > started w/ point search) and others will contribute to the external project. > Nothing wrong with that, of course, people can do as they wish, it's just why > I would prefer a single solution as part of our modules. If SIS or something > else w/ a better license was as mature as JTS, we probably wouldn't even be > having the discussion. > > On a different level, for me personally, and I really stress this just my > personal choice, I don't have much interest in contributing to non-ASF (or > similar foundation based open source projects) because they don't offer the > same legal framework, branding, resources and other opportunities that the > ASF does. > > -Grant > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
