On Apr 3, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
> If we do elect for option A, I would also suggest we delete the
> spatial contrib (in 4.0) and have solr depend on the external .jar --
> this way lucene users would have what they need directly with the
> external .jar, and solr users would get lots of fancy new stuff
> off-the-shelf.


At the end of the day, Solr only uses a few methods in the Lucene contrib:  the 
geohash stuff and a few other distance utils (some static methods that I moved 
from Solr down to Lucene).  That's about it.   Everything else is just 
FieldTypes and function queries (the tier stuff is broken b/c of the sinusoidal 
projection impl. and I didn't see a need for the geometry stuff).  If we move 
function queries to modules, those utils could just be hidden in there (or they 
could just be put in Solr for that matter if function queries stay where they 
are) and there would be no need for any external dependency.  Then, there is no 
spatial package at all and anyone who wishes to work on Spatial can go do it in 
the proposed external project if they need anything beyond point search. 

That being said, a separate package/project is what LocalLucene/LocalSolr was.  
You are of course free to do as you wish, but to me things that are first order 
supported by the community seem to stick better than those that don't and have 
the benefit of our extensive testing framework as well as resources, especially 
something as popular as spatial.   I think, though, at the end of the day, you 
are just going to see, once again, a forking as people will likely be confused 
about where to contribute.  Some will continue to contribute to Lucene/Solr b/c 
that is what they are working on (b/c they started w/ point search) and others 
will contribute to the external project.  Nothing wrong with that, of course, 
people can do as they wish, it's just why I would prefer a single solution as 
part of our modules.  If SIS or something else w/ a better license was as 
mature as JTS, we probably wouldn't even be having the discussion.  

On a different level, for me personally, and I really stress this just my 
personal choice, I don't have much interest in contributing to non-ASF (or 
similar foundation based open source projects) because they don't offer the 
same legal framework, branding, resources and other opportunities that the ASF 
does.

-Grant



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to