On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
[ ] OK with JTS compile dependency. Spatial support should be a module
[X] OK with JTS, but think this spatial stuff should happen elsewhere
[ ] Please, no LGPL dependencies in lucene build
~ David Smiley
Author:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
Some may be following the thread on spatial development... here is a
quick summary, and a poll to help decide what may be the best next
move.
I'm hoping to introduce a high level spatial API that can be used for
a
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why we need a compile/test dependency is needed at all:
We provide a factory based spatial module where one specifies a
SpatialProvider. We have our own implementation of that which works for
some
On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why we need a compile/test dependency is needed at all:
We provide a factory based spatial module where one specifies a
SpatialProvider. We have
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
The code can be separated so that the the dependencies are as you
suggest -- i have done this, but it makes testing more difficult and
less robust. As part of the framework I've introduced a robust way to
use the same
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why we need a compile/test dependency is needed at all:
We provide
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
The code can be separated so that the the dependencies are as you
suggest -- i have done this, but it makes testing more difficult and
less robust. As
On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:
I'm sorta confused about this (i'll probably offend someone here, but so be
it)
Don't worry
Its hard for me to tell, i hope the reason isn't elegance, but why aren't
we working on making a simple,supported,80-20 case in lucene that
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 22:43, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
Some may be following the thread on spatial development... here is a
quick summary, and a poll to help decide what may be the best next
move.
I'm hoping
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Earwin Burrfoot ear...@gmail.com wrote:
Handling Unicode code points outside of BMP is highly expert stuff as
well. And is totally unneeded by 80% of the users for any other reason
except elegance. I think you two guys can really understand each
other here : )
I love this idea.!
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Apr 6, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Grant Ingersoll grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why we need a compile/test dependency is needed at all:
We provide a factory based spatial module where one specifies a
SpatialProvider. We have our own
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 01:11, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Earwin Burrfoot ear...@gmail.com wrote:
Handling Unicode code points outside of BMP is highly expert stuff as
well. And is totally unneeded by 80% of the users for any other reason
except
12 matches
Mail list logo
