lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "patrick o'leary" <pj...@pjaol.com>
Subject Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature
Date Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:14:00 GMT
>
> You probably mean that to be derogatory, but it's related and not in a bad
> way.  This is about effective communication, which marketing people
> understand.


Hence the term spatial-luence, or as it was originally called locallucene-
We are discussing an internal component, where folks want to change the name
of the methodology of how it works.

To me it's like renaming the crank shaft in a car to the Spinning Wheel
Turner.


If "CartesianTier" more accurately describes the class than alternatives
> such
> as CartesianGrid or CartesianTile, please make that case.
>

CartesianTier's adequately describes what the design does- Layer one
cartesian coordinate system on top of another....

It's not a grid system, grids describe the bounding lines - where a point is
x,y : x1,y1, the intersection of 2 grid lines.
Cartesian Tiles ? again a web mapping concept ... that's dropping the
concept of tiers.
A single cartesian tier on it's own is of limited use.


 As a consumer of your API, I will thank you for working hard at the design
> stage to save me time and effort down the road.
>

I appreciate your thanks and ask for your patience in following the train of
thought .
What effort do you have down the road, and how does the name of it create
problems for you?

If I were calling this PatrickGeoSolutions or MagicalGeoStuff then I would
understand the problem,
What I'm doing is calling it by what it's doing generating a Cartesian
Tiered system
could I put the word coordinate in there? Sure why not,
CartesianCoordinateTiers ?

But is that really worth breaking all the existing references to this? What
value is that for the users?



On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:54:21AM -0800, patrick o'leary wrote:
>
> > But at the same time, the rational behind finding a name that most folks
> are
> > familiar with, is kind of like sales / marketing talk....
>
> You probably mean that to be derogatory, but it's related and not in a bad
> way.  This is about effective communication, which marketing people
> understand.
>
> In addition to working on Lucy, I'm the primary author of KinoSearch, a
> loose
> port of Lucene to Perl/C.  KinoSearch's main index writer class used to be
> called "InvIndexer", partly to highlight the fact that it worked with
> "inverted indexes", partly to lessen the overload burden on the word
> "index",
> and partly because it was easy to say.  And some people actually like the
> term
> and have adopted it:
>
>
> http://www.rectangular.com/pipermail/kinosearch/2009-December/007164.html
>
>    > "invindex"?  Interesting choice.  I always thought it was a good word,
>    > but I moved away from that because people didn't grok it right away.
>
>    I always like the word. So I stole it. :) It is unambiguous, even if
>    people do not know what it means right away.
>
> So, it worked as intended within a small, elite group.  But let me tell
> you,
> it has mostly been a pain in the neck.  I've trained people on KinoSearch,
> I've given talks, etc, and the specialized terminology has just slowed most
> people down.  It has annoyed more than it has clarified.
>
> Since that class's name has switched to "Indexer", things have gotten
> easier.
> People remember that class easily, it rolls off the tongue.  They learn it
> quickly, and there are no pauses while they try to recall jargon.  I'm very
> pleased with how the change has worked out.
>
> > This is open source, not a commercial entity that needs to have features
> > that can fit on a brochure.
>
> As an open source author, I take great pride crafting intutive, simple
> APIs,
> and in communicating effectively in general.
>
> At the micro-level, that includes writing good email, good documentation,
> good
> comments... always using all communication channels to the best advantage.
> (For instance by aggressively pruning quoted material and rewrapping it so
> that may even be clearer than in the poorly formatted original).
>
> At the high level, that means designing good class hierarchies that people
> can
> navigate easily.  Using intuitive names -- so long as they are accurate --
> is
> an important part of that.
>
> If "CartesianTier" more accurately describes the class than alternatives
> such
> as CartesianGrid or CartesianTile, please make that case.  I have to say,
> I'm
> a little confused.  I assumed that a CartesianTier corresponded to a single
> zoom level: one tier.  CartesianGrid seemed like an equivalent, using more
> popular terminology.  But in other parts of this conversation, people have
> made references to trees.  This isn't an R-Tree implementation, is it?
>
> Please pick a name that will make it as easy as possible for me to
> understand.
> As a consumer of your API, I will thank you for working hard at the design
> stage to save me time and effort down the road.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message