> > 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 <mar...@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 > > >
