patrick o'leary wrote: > Think we crossed lines somewhere on the first part of the discussion. > > > >>> But your doing that yourself at source forge? Hasn't there been a lot of >>> > work on an external LocalLucene, even after it was put into contrib? > While the contrib version was left in a fairly hairy state? > Thats just the nature of the license - but putting LocalLucene into > contrib hasn't appeared to help much. > ==== > > I disagree Mark, locallucene hasn't been updated in 8 month on source forge > http://locallucene.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/locallucene/trunk/ > > locallucene/<http://locallucene.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/locallucene/trunk/locallucene/> > > *168*<http://locallucene.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/locallucene/trunk/locallucene/?view=log> > 8 > months pjaol Added getQuery(Query) method to convert distance filter to a > query allowing loca... > Only localsolr has had work performed on it,while waiting to get something > in Solr, spatial lucene has been slowly updated over time, by more than just > I > which is what open source and iteration is all about. > If you want to wait for perfection, you have to wait. > Okay, fair enough - I was going by the front page stats that mention a number of recent commits and hearsay that was told to me by others (or other ;) ). To be fair, I haven't looked at the code, so I'm happy to take your word for it. My apologies.
> As for leaving spatial contribution in a hairy state, you care to clarify? > No documentation, almost no javadoc, extremely sparse tests, quite a few bugs, some funky code / left over unused code. There is a history of it on the Lucene-dev list - not that its that big of a deal, but kind of irksome that those that put it in haven't responded to any of the issues, and others that are less familiar have had to somewhat pick up the torch. A couple people were made contrib committers with the hope that they would help with the upkeep and fixes - otherwise an existing committer could have just dumped it all in. I don't really mean that as negative as it prob comes off though. Some things are now better, but I don't think great. Part of the nature of open source as well, but irksome non the less. > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> patrick o'leary wrote: >> >>> Someone pulling an Al Gore (inventing the internet) on this isn't my >>> concern, heck you can just google for some of the class names of >>> locallucene and see how far spread it is, >>> >> Then whats this about: >> >> " >> >> but it's giving significant, 'impression of ownership' of a lot of work >> that's been completed >> by other folks." >> >> >>> what I am more concerned about >>> >>> "Future versions of these patches may include support for search with >>> regular polygons, and the introduction of distance facets, allowing Solr >>> users to be able to filter their results based on the calculated >>> >> distances." >> >>> They're now 'flogging' recent and current work I and others are doing? >>> >>> ... not encouraging, and certainly not healthy for open source. >>> >>> >> Doesn't sound that way to me. >> >>> I'm going to be brash and request that there is commitment to adding a >>> >> basic >> >>> Spatial feature set for distance searching (restricted by distance) & >>> sorting >>> to Solr's trunk by the end of December. Iterate and refactor as needed >>> >> after >> >>> that. >>> >>> There should not be any more excuses to having this code out in the cold >>> >> as >> >>> patches and external projects. >>> >>> >> But your doing that yourself at source forge? Hasn't there been a lot of >> work on an external LocalLucene, even after it was put into contrib? >> While the >> contrib version was left in a fairly hairy state? >> >> Thats just the nature of the license - but putting LocalLucene into >> contrib hasn't appeared to help much. >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>> Yonik Seeley wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM, patrick o'leary <pj...@pjaol.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> What spatial contributions have been contributed from this? >>>>>> I'm only seeing some query parsing / multi-threading extensions, no >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> shapes / >>>> >>>> >>>>>> SRID's etc >>>>>> but it's giving significant, 'impression of ownership' of a lot of >>>>>> >> work >> >>>>>> that's been completed >>>>>> by other folks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Looks like they acknowledge building on local solr and local lucene to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> me: >>>> >>>> >>>>> """SSP started out its life as a patch for Solr Spatial Search >>>>> (Solr-773) and Spatial Lucene (Lucene-1732) and extends Solr and >>>>> Lucene with hereunto missing geodetic search functions (bounding boxes >>>>> etc) while improving on the speed of the result and performance when >>>>> dealing with a large data set through better query parsing and >>>>> multi-threaded filtering. Also included are improved extensibility and >>>>> documentation.""" >>>>> >>>>> And in a way, they do "own" their plugin - their customizations, >>>>> packaging, etc (note: I haven't looked at it). And they offer support >>>>> for it - which might be attractive to some companies that need >>>>> supported geosearch now. >>>>> >>>>> It's also open source under the Apache license, so presumably we could >>>>> borrow anything we want from it. >>>>> >>>>> -Yonik >>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think Patrick is obviously referring to: However, in the last 6 months >>>> support for spatial search has begun to be added to Apache Lucene and >>>> Solr, much of which has been developed here at JTeam. >>>> >>>> "Much of which" is obviously a bit of an overstatement (to a great >>>> degree or extent) when you look at all the work thats been done. >>>> >>>> Oh well though. So it goes. Its Apache - they could package it all up, >>>> hide the code under the covers, put a notice saying some work was >>>> derived from Solr, call it Solr: geo search edition, and essentially >>>> take even more credit while adding little to nothing. I wouldn't sweat >>>> >> it. >> >>>> >>> >> > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com
