I was aiming to preserve backward compatibility while adding the new field. 




If you feel it is okay to go the specified direction I can do that. 




--Aaron

—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Jordan Sissel <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

>> @@ -41,6 +41,14 @@ class LogStash::Filters::GeoIP < LogStash::Filters::Base
>>    # information of both IP's
>>    config :target, :validate => :string, :default => 'geoip'
>>  
>> +  # Create a GeoJSON field from lon/lat
>> +  # This can also be used by a mapping to create an Elasticsearch geo_point.
>> +  # http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/mapping-geo-point-type.html
>> +  config :add_geojson, :validate => :boolean, :default => true
>> +
>> +  # What name to use for the field indicated by add_geojson
>> +  config :geojson_name, :validate => :string, :default => 'location'
> I wonder that this is essentially two settings for one effect. Further, if you say you want geojson, you'll still get the "latitude" and "longitude" fields, essentially duplicating your data.
> How about this -
> A setting "coordinate format" (perhaps a better name needs proposing) that has two possible settings: geojson, and ... something else that indicates the current default of two fields (latitude + longitude).
> This way we reduce this PR to only adding 1 new setting *and* we avoid duplicating data. Thoughts?
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/logstash/logstash/pull/760/files#r7483731