On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Justin Deoliveira <jdeol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I have been looking at the solr data store that was developed recently and
> I have a mandate to make some modifications to it. Before proceeding I
> wanted to bounce the approach off of the group first.
>
> First change I need is pretty simple, and it's to support the bounding box
> field type. [1] Fields of this type are encoded differently than the other
> existing spatial types, they are encoded as a 4 value tuple rather than
> wkt. What I was thinking here was just to introduce a simple strategy
> interface based on the field type. All in all a pretty straight forward
> modification I think.
>
Yep, that would be good, there are also other types of geometries we are
not supporting at the moment,
so having an interface to extend this further in the future would be useful
down the road.
Wondering, doesn't this also affect how searches are encoded? Or does the
bbox type support all the same
search operators we support for the wkt types?
>
> The second change is somewhat more involved. At the moment the
> configuration of the datastore requires the user to specify a field that
> groups documents in the index into logical layers. Unfortunately this
> "mapping strategy" does't work with the types of indexes I am working with.
> So what I would like to do is add an additional strategy. In my case I want
> to serve up the entire index as a single layer (with potentially a few
> parameters that would always be included in the filter query made to solr).
>
Right, this also came up in a thread on geoserver users. The current design
is by sponsor spec, but towards the end of the development I also
would have liked to have something more generic, where you would specify a
name and a SOLR filter to go with it... it was just going to take too
much time to develop it along with a user interface to go with it.
I also did not think that adding an attribute to select the layers
ownership would have been such a problem, SOLR has ways to add an
attribute to all documents, and set its value, and documents are
unstructured anyways. So... is the problem an issue of search efficiency?
> The approach i am thinking of is to add a "MappingStrategy" interface that
> would encapsulate how documents in the index are mapped to features. Given
> the unstructured nature of document storage in lucene I imagine this
> interface could prove useful in order to support additional future mapping
> strategies.
>
Wondering again if this might affect how filters should be encoded, and if
MappingStrategy should have a say in the filter capabilties, or given
a chance to alter the filter, or split it in a encodable/not encodable part.
>
> The exisitng mapping strategy would of course remain the default and while
> I was planning to add a few additional data store parameters to control the
> mapping configuration it will remain 100% backward compatible (important
> for geoserver users who already have data store configurations out there).
>
Yep, that would work. I am wondering, the code in GeoServer relies on the
current mapping strategy also at the level of attribute
selection, there is dedicated GUI for it.
How will the new mapping strategy fit into it? Like will the GUI just gets
disabled because the newer mapping strategy just
picks the attributes it likes internally?
Cheers
Andrea
--
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/NWWaa2 for more information.
==
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
*AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003*
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
