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 22:38:53 GMT
No just that-

We are looking at this API as a web maps tile solution- which it isn't.
Spatial - lucene as it was originally proposed was meant to be a tool box of
solutions-
Where CartesianTiers was one of the tools, as was GeoHash, and anything else
that others wanted to contribute.

Now we're saying, rename it to make it more attractive to people who are
familiar with a web map...
Is this really the right thing?

If you want that, then I'll happily contribute the code to do that, it gives
you full Google Maps Tiles, TMS, and MS Quad Key's, which makes faceted
overlays attractive.
It's really handy.
But again that doesn't solve search for you.

And that is the key to this point, the two things (map tiles / grids and
cartesian tiers)  are mutually independent




On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> But is that really worth breaking all the existing references to this?
>> What
>> value is that for the users?
>>
>>
> Just to clarify... your concern is two fold:
> 1. No term is perfect, Cartesian Tier is as good as any, lets stick with
> it.
> 2. There are already references to cartesian tiers (like this thread :),
> lets stick with it.
>
> The counter arguments are:
> 1. 'Tile' or 'Grid' immediately make more sense to the uninitiated
> 2. If we are going to pick a term, now is the time.
>
> The difference in opinion (as far as I can tell) is that everyone except
> Patrick is looking at this as a new API, not as an existing one.  The
> spatial bits of lucene/solr, it is now quite different then localsolr, as
> such, i'm not sure concern about breaking references makes much sense.
>
> ryan
>
>
>

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