I have a slight preference for B similarly to how StandardAnalyzer is in core and other analyzers are in analysis, but no strong feelings. In any case I agree that both A and B would be much better than the current situation.
Le mer. 20 juin 2018 à 18:09, David Smiley <[email protected]> a écrit : > I think everyone agrees the current state of spatial code organization in > Lucene is not desirable. We have a spatial module that has almost nothing > in it, we have mature spatial code in the sandbox that needs to "graduate" > somewhere, and we've got a handful of geo utilities in Lucene core (mostly > because I didn't notice). No agreement has been reached on what the > desired state should be. > > I'd like to hear opinions on this from members of the community. I am > especially interested in listening to people that normally don't seem to > speak up about spatial matters. Perhaps Uwe Schindlerand Alan Woodward – I > respect both of you guys a ton for your tenure with Lucene and aren't too > pushy with your opinions. I can be convinced to change my mind, especially > if coming from you two. Of course anyone can respond -- this is an open > discussion! > > As I understand it, there are two proposals loosely defined as follows: > > (A) Common spatial needs will be met in the "spatial" module. The Lucene > "spatial" module, currently in a weird gutted state, should have basically > all spatial code currently in sandbox plus all geo stuff in Lucene core. > Thus there will be no geo stuff in Lucene core. > > (B) Common spatial needs will be met by Lucene core. Lucene core should > expand it's current "geo" utilities to include the spatial stuff currently > in the sandbox module. It'd also take on what little remains in the Lucene > spatial module and thus we can remove the spatial module. > > With either plan if a user has certain advanced/specialized needs they may > need to go to spatial3d or spatial-extras modules. These would be > untouched in both proposals. > > I'm in favor of (A) on the grounds that we have modules for special > feature areas, and spatial should be no different. My gut estimation is > that 75-90% of apps do not have spatial requirements and need not depend on > any spatial module. Other modules are probably used more (e.g. queries, > suggest, etc.) > > Respectfully, > ~ David > > p.s. if I mischaracterized any proposal or overlooked another then I'm > sorry, please correct me. > -- > Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker > LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book: > http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com >
