I am wondering why it is necessary to have a different geometry type in Flink than in Calcite.
If you think that the implementation in Calcite sucks, then rather than making a different one for Flink, how about making a different one for Calcite, and use that in Flink? I’m not super-proud of the implementation in Calcite; it was the best I could do given the time available.
In Calcite we are extremely short of development resources. All of the spatial work in Calcite has been done by me, on my own time. It is depressing to see someone use it and immediately decide they are going to re-implement it all in their own project.
On May 22, 2018, at 8:28 PM, Xingcan Cui <xingcanc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Recently, the flink community aims to add some OpenGIS functions (see
FLINK-9219 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-9219>) provided in
CALCITE-1968 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1968>. For some
reasons, we plan to implement some Flink Geom types (as illustrated in this
but the private constructor in `o.a.c.r.GeoFunctions` makes that impossible.
We are confused about the protected method `bind()`, as well as other
private modifiers in `o.a.c.r.GeoFunctions`. I wonder if someone could help
to give some explanations about that. Do we in the right direction?
Besides, maybe there should be a new Geom operand type in