The class names can be long and descriptive, but the field-type "location_rpt" is short and nice.
Questions: Should we also add a <dynamicField name="*_geo" type="location_rpt" multiValued="true" > to make it possible to use it with an unmodified schema? Should we deprecate the "old" LatLonType in code and docs or would you say that both are needed due to features/performance? If we want people to use the new spatial over the old, the exampledocs should also index&query store locations using the new field -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com 19. sep. 2012 kl. 04:02 skrev David Smiley (@MITRE.org) <[email protected]>: > Hi Jack, > > Thanks for your interest. Each SpatialStrategy has its pros and cons. I'm > working through creating slides for a conference today in fact: > http://www.basistech.com/search-conference/presentations/ Now that the > Solr adapters are committed, I'll be focusing more on documentation. That > means the wiki, and javadoc comments on the SpatialStrategy impls to > indicate how each works. > > ~ David > > > > ----- > Author: http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Spatial-field-names-in-Solr-tp4008769p4008787.html > Sent from the Lucene - Java Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
