On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Ryan McKinley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> No, the question is: what justification is there for adding spatial >>> support to solr-only, leaving lucene with a broken contrib module, >>> versus adding it where it belongs and exposing it to solr? >> >> There need not be any linkage to lucene to improve a Solr feature. >> If you disagree, we should vote to clarify - this is too important >> (and too much of a negative for Solr). >> > > I don't think there is *requirement* to move the core spatial stuff to > lucene, but I think there is huge benefit to both communities if > things have as few dependencies as possible. To be frank, the spatial > support in solr is pretty hairy -- it works for some use cases, but is > not extendable and quite basic. Calling it 'distance' seems more > appropriate then 'spatial'
Having something basic that works (and has a clean enough high level HTTP interface) was clearly a win for Solr users. Of course a more fully featured spatial module would be a win for everyone, but that's ignoring the more generic issue at hand here: a patch that improves Solr's spatial should not be blocked on the grounds that it does not improve Lucene's spatial enough. Likewise, the ridiculous notion that "Queries don't belong in Solr" needs to be put to rest. -Yonik --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
