On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Ryan McKinley wrote: > I'm trying to have an open discussion about what makes sense for > spatial development. I don't *want* to start a new project... but I > think we need a dev/test environment that can support the whole range > of spatial needs -- without reinventing many wheels, this includes > JTS. > > Lucene currently has LGPL compile dependencies, but they are on the > way out, and (unless I'm missing something) i don't think folks are > open to adding a JTS build/test dependency -- Maybe I should call a > vote on the JTS issue, though i suspect most binding votes are -0 or > -1. I *totally* understand if other people don't want JTS in the > build system -- it is not a core concern to most people involved.
Until there is a specific patch that brings in and shows how JTS would be incorporated (via reflection and as a totally optional piece, presumably, per the ASF LGPL guidelines), there really isn't anything to vote on. > I don't want this to be competition or duplicate effort. I hope it > lets us clean up the broken stuff from lucene and overtime deprecate > the parts that are better supported elsewhere. I totally agree. I hope I wasn't framing it that way. I'm just trying to understand what's being proposed. I can see advantages to both. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
