lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature
Date Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:00:11 GMT
>>
>>> Do you think it is worth a name change?  This is about to get  
>>> baked into
>>> Solr and I would really prefer we choose names that the rest of  
>>> the world
>>> seems to understand.
>>
>> If it hasn't been baked in yet, then +1.  I do agree that it's  
>> important to
>> use names that are already present in the hivemind rather than  
>> invent new
>> ones.  Been there, done that, got sick of having to explain myself,  
>> went back
>> to popular names...
>>
>
> It's semi-baked into Lucene already and people familiar w/  
> LocalLucene and LocalSolr.
>

Although it is 'semi-baked', the spatial contrib in 2.9 is clearly  
marked experimental and subject to change.  Also, the tier stuff in  
2.9 does not have enough substance to stand on its own -- any change  
will break APIs.

If folks think "tile" (or "grid") make more sense, now is an easy time  
to change.

In my book it seems better to use the most common terms, but I can  
also see the advantage to knowing that if people are talking about  
"cartesian tiers" then they are referring to lucene.  (That can also  
be useful to distinguish spatial lucene/solr from "LocalLucene/Solr")

I'm +1 for "Tile"

ryan

Mime
View raw message