On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote: >> I'm sorta confused about this (i'll probably offend someone here, but so be >> it) > > Don't worry > > >> Its hard for me to tell, i hope the reason isn't "elegance", but why aren't >> we working on making a simple,supported,80-20 case in lucene that >> non-spatial-gurus (and users) understand and can maintain... > > for me it is all about testing and development. > > For my needs I can't use the simple stuff, and *need* the features > that many users won't care about. I have not done any work on the > existing spatial contrib because it does not meet my needs. > > The code can be separated so that the the dependencies are as you > suggest -- i have done this, but it makes testing more difficult and > less robust. As part of the framework I've introduced a robust way to > use the same data and and tests with different strategies and > implementations. For me to work on it, i need the stuff i use to be a > first class citizen in testing.
I don't follow why testing is any harder. The core interfaces and baseline implementation (along w/ point search) are tested here. The JTS project does it's own tests. You can certainly, on your machine, run the tests together. As I voted earlier, I think we should just define the interfaces here along w/ a baseline implementation that meets the 80/20 rule and the JTS project (or whatever else) lives somewhere else. I just don't see any valid way to bring in a compile/test dependency on JTS that we can support as a first class citizen, but that doesn't mean we can't support the framework which makes it easy to drop in and test on an individual's machine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
