Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Dec 28, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
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"
Ditto. I'm +1 on tiles.
It's not so often that I find on this forum a topic to which I can
contribute.
So as a total outsider, french-speaking, barely acquainted with Lucene
and Solr, and who'se closest claim to knowledge in the matter is to have
been an interested spectator at the Lucene/Solr presentations at
ApacheCON Europe 2009, I vote
- for "tiles" or "grid", because they are terms I would search for in
association with (geo)spatial stuff, while I would never think of tiers
- for Cartesian because it comes from René Descartes, an icon of
french-speaking philosophy and rationalism, and because it intuitively
connects to the concept of "coordinates"
