Geosearch naming: keep or not _ in suffix?

[curquiza]

Following this discussion: #439

For v0.28.0, we could consider this breaking naming change.

Is it relevant to keep or remove the _ in front of different geosearch fields?

• _geo: in the documents themself
• _geoRadius/_geoPoint: used in the search parameter filter/sort

@bidoubiwa opinion (in the previous linked discussion)

I don't think this usage is easy to understand or to use. I also understand why we added the _ in front of the function name, but it adds a layer of possible mistakes and confusion. With the function (or what appears to be one) and the _ it feels a bit like calling a private method in a string. I'm not sure we want to give the sensation to the user that he is coding in a string.

@gmourier opinion (in the previous linked discussion)

Nevertheless, I'm not directly attached to the fact of including _ in the name of the built-in functions or _geo, I don't know if it's better or worse, it deserves a dedicated discussion.

@curquiza opinion: the breaking should be worth it! If it's breaking for "nothing" or almost, we don't break 😇

What is your opinion on this?

[curquiza]

For additional context: no user complained/reported about the _ suffix so far. However, this is still something we could consider :)
As usual, the breaking should be worth it.

[irevoire]

In my opinion, since no one ever complained, there is no reason to change it.
But adding the option to configure where is your _geo object located would be a great addition to the feature because some people complained they had to remap their whole dataset to fit our format.

Also, I think almost everyone uses lon for the longitude, and we use lng. Thus having an option to configure the path to the longitude and the latitude separately might be even better than letting people change the path of the _geo object.
With the support of the nested fields that should cover most use cases.

[curquiza]

Thanks for the feedback @irevoire! Since this discussion is only focused on naming and your suggestion could be a nice improvement, can I let you create another discussion for what you mention? 😇

[irevoire]

Yeah, well for the naming, in a word, I just wanted to say that it's useless to change it since it'll never work for everyone, and we should focus on the configuration of the lat / lng.

[curquiza]

Yes I got your idea in your previous message 😁 Just saying the improvement you suggested is nice as well and would deserve a dedicated discussion, but I will open it, I can understand you don't have the time

[curquiza]

New open discussion here: #444

[curquiza]

Regarding the feedback @gmourier and I decided to keep the _ as it is for v0.28.0, so probably (99% sure) for v1.
It does not mean the discussion cannot continue and could not be considered in another versions