You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucene.apache.org by ka...@nokia.com on 2012/11/15 16:27:33 UTC
Spatial4j dependency in lucene 4.0.0, final
Hi guys,
The 4.0.0 lucene-spatial maven dependency on spatial4j is UNVERSIONED. But the two spatial4j versions in play (0.2 and 0.3) are significantly different. We have code developed for lucene-spatial 4.0.0 beta which doesn't seem to compile with either spatial4j version. What was the intention here?
Karl
Re: Spatial4j dependency in lucene 4.0.0, final
Posted by "Smiley, David W." <ds...@mitre.org>.
On Nov 15, 2012, at 4:09 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>>
wrote:
I am willing to assist to some extent with spatial4j, if that is yours.
FYI the Spatial4j dev list is here: http://spatial4j.16575.n6.nabble.com
It changed significantly from 0.2 to 0.3, and not just in the area of package and class naming, no?
I recall they may have been significant, … not totally sure as I'm more forward looking and I barely remember what the changes were back in 0.2 at this point. Future versions will probably change a lot too. Chris has a branch with some significant changes already.
~ David
RE: Spatial4j dependency in lucene 4.0.0, final
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Hi David,
We found the version in the grandparent pom, so that's ok. The build issue against 0.2 was due to other changes in Lucene 4.0.0-BETA vs. Lucene 4.0.0.
I am willing to assist to some extent with spatial4j, if that is yours. It changed significantly from 0.2 to 0.3, and not just in the area of package and class naming, no?
Karl
From: ext Smiley, David W. [mailto:dsmiley@mitre.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:05 PM
To: <de...@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Spatial4j dependency in lucene 4.0.0, final
Hi Karl!
You say that the dependency isn't versioned, but all dependencies are versioned. If you say it's unversioned because you can't see the version in the pom for lucene-spatial, that's because it's specified in the <dependencyManagement> section of the parent pom for lucene itself. Lucene 4.0.0-BETA depends on Spatial4j 0.2, and Lucene 4.0.0 depends on Spatial4j 0.3. I'm not sure what to say about your code that won't compile with either.
By the way, if you would like to participate in shaping Spatial4j and/or Lucene spatial, then I welcome your input; I know you have some spatial experience with MetaCarta. Presently, it's basically just me + a little bit of Chris Male; Ryan McKinley has 0 bandwidth these days.
Cheers,
David
On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:27 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>>
<ka...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
The 4.0.0 lucene-spatial maven dependency on spatial4j is UNVERSIONED. But the two spatial4j versions in play (0.2 and 0.3) are significantly different. We have code developed for lucene-spatial 4.0.0 beta which doesn't seem to compile with either spatial4j version. What was the intention here?
Karl
Re: Spatial4j dependency in lucene 4.0.0, final
Posted by "Smiley, David W." <ds...@mitre.org>.
Hi Karl!
You say that the dependency isn't versioned, but all dependencies are versioned. If you say it's unversioned because you can't see the version in the pom for lucene-spatial, that's because it's specified in the <dependencyManagement> section of the parent pom for lucene itself. Lucene 4.0.0-BETA depends on Spatial4j 0.2, and Lucene 4.0.0 depends on Spatial4j 0.3. I'm not sure what to say about your code that won't compile with either.
By the way, if you would like to participate in shaping Spatial4j and/or Lucene spatial, then I welcome your input; I know you have some spatial experience with MetaCarta. Presently, it's basically just me + a little bit of Chris Male; Ryan McKinley has 0 bandwidth these days.
Cheers,
David
On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:27 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>>
<ka...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
The 4.0.0 lucene-spatial maven dependency on spatial4j is UNVERSIONED. But the two spatial4j versions in play (0.2 and 0.3) are significantly different. We have code developed for lucene-spatial 4.0.0 beta which doesn’t seem to compile with either spatial4j version. What was the intention here?
Karl