I also favor B: move the common case, good performing spatial implementations to core, but still bake new things in sandbox. LatLonPoint has baked way too long already! The addition of first class (codec support) KD trees in Lucene (dimensional points) was/is really a game changer for Lucene supporting common geo spatial applications.
It would be nice to find a better name than geo3d / spatial3d: it confuses 100% of the people I explain it to, on first impression :) But we should tackle that separately/later. Merging the 2D/3D abstractions sounds a little too ambitious at this point, so I think it's fine to leave them separate for now. Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Nicholas Knize <[email protected]> wrote: > If I were to pick between the two, I also have a preference for B. I've > also tried to keep this whole spatial organization rather simple: > > core - simple spatial capabilities needed by the 99% spatial use case > (e.g., web mapping). Includes LatLonPoint, polygon & distance search > (everything currently in sandbox). Lightweight, and no dependencies or > complexities. If one wants simple and fast point search, all you need is > the core module. > > spatial - dependency free. Expands on core spatial to include simple shape > searching. Uses internal relations. Everything confined to core and spatial > modules. > > spatial-extras - expanded spatial capabilities. Welcomes third-party > dependencies (e.g., S3, SIS, Proj4J). Targets more advanced/expert GIS > use-cases. > > geo3d - trades speed for accuracy. I've always struggled with the name, > since it implies 3D shapes/point cloud support. But history has shown > considering a name change to be a bike-shedding endeavor. > > At the end of the day I'm up for whatever makes most sense for everyone > here. Lord knows we could use more people helping out on geo. > > - Nick > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:40 AM Adrien Grand <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> -- > Nicholas Knize | Geospatial Software Guy | Elasticsearch & Apache > Lucene | [email protected] >
