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 18:48:08 GMT

On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll
> <> wrote:
>> I don't see why we need a compile/test dependency is needed at all:
>> We provide a factory based spatial module where one specifies a
>> SpatialProvider.  We have our own implementation of that which works for
>> some set (or all) of the features.   An external project (Apache Extras?)
> This is the non-starter for me.  This would split the dev across
> multiple places and mean that the implementations I use (JTS) would
> not be a first class citizen in testing.
> This is the point of the whole debate... and why i think elsewhere may
> be a better option.

That's a bit contradictory, though, isn't it?  By definition, elsewhere means split too, b/c
we have stated the point search stuff isn't going anywhere.  And even if it does, you will
still need to have a separate factory based implementation and ship a non-JTS provider, otherwise
none of it can be packaged into a L/S release, so it's still the same amount of work. 
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message