On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > Additionally, how do you deal w/ a point in a 3D (or n-D) space?
I guess you would go back to the way you did it (0,1,etc). This was really just a naming variation, not really a different approach. > I just don't see why a user shouldn't be able to use the FieldType just like > any other FieldType, dynamic or not. I think it is easy enough to detect > name collisions and you still get all the flexibility of dynamic fields. > So, for example, say I was modeling a user and their employment history. > Thus, I have a single home address plus multiple work addresses. One way of > doing this would be: > > <field name="home" type="point"/> > <dynamicField name="work_*" type="point"/> > > And that should all just work. But it isn't that simple: you needed to define the point type, and that point type needed to reference/define another type. In the dynamicField proposal, you need to define a _latlon dynamic field once. It's also a separate decision from the lookup mechanism (dynamic field based, or add a new poly-field mechanism) - the point field type could choose to dynamically register *_latlon if it isn't already registered. [...] > How would you do this with what is proposed above? Seems like you'd have a > whole proliferation of fields. I thought I defined it well... hmmm. I'll take another stab, outlining using dynamic fields in both scenarios (explicitly defined dynamic fields, and automatically defined as part of the creation of the point class). I think we really do need to get concrete about our options at this point. -Yonik
