lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [POLL] JTS compile/test dependency
Date Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:00:37 GMT

On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:

>> I'm sorta confused about this (i'll probably offend someone here, but so be it)
> Don't worry
>> Its hard for me to tell, i hope the reason isn't "elegance", but why aren't
>> we working on making a simple,supported,80-20 case in lucene that
>> non-spatial-gurus (and users) understand and can maintain...
> for me it is all about testing and development.
> For my needs I can't use the simple stuff, and *need* the features
> that many users won't care about.  I have not done any work on the
> existing spatial contrib because it does not meet my needs.
> The code can be separated so that the the dependencies are as you
> suggest -- i have done this, but it makes testing more difficult and
> less robust.  As part of the framework I've introduced a robust way to
> use the same data and and tests with different strategies and
> implementations.  For me to work on it, i need the stuff i use to be a
> first class citizen in testing.

I don't follow why testing is any harder.  The core interfaces and baseline implementation
(along w/ point search) are tested here.  The JTS project does it's own tests.  You can certainly,
on your machine, run the tests together.   As I voted earlier, I think we should just define
the interfaces here along w/ a baseline implementation that meets the 80/20 rule and the JTS
project (or whatever else) lives somewhere else.  I just don't see any valid way to bring
in a compile/test dependency on JTS that we can support as a first class citizen, but that
doesn't mean we can't support the framework which makes it easy to drop in and test on an
individual's machine.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message