Hello.
Matt Juntunen proposes to substantially modify the API of the
"geometry" code ported from "Commons Math".[1]
Since Matt is the sole currently visible contributor to this
functionality, I've just committed the changes to "master", as
agreed.[2]
However, although I understand the purpose, I'm not convinced that
it is sound (given that we try to be OO) to have e.g.
-----
public class Point3D extends Cartesian3D { /* ... */ }
-----
because the statement
Every 3D-point "is-a" set of 3 Cartesian coordinates
is false.
AFAICT, and as I indicated in the previous discussion [2], this
can only be resolved if a basic assumption of the new component
library will be that Cartesian coordinates are first-class citizens
while all other coordinate systems, even though mathematically
equivalent, won't be.
It is perhaps the right choice given the intended scope and usage
of the library, but certainly one to be fully documented (and
impossible to revert without breaking the API).
Personally, I'd prefer to base a new API on the following (true)
statement:
Every 3D-point "has-a" set of 3 Cartesian coordinates
But I'm not going to fight over it since I cannot affirm that it
won't have drawbacks perhaps (?) not worth it given the target
applications.
This post is to make that very clear FTR. Those having another
POV are most welcome to voice it *now* here.
Technical issues about this PR are discussed on the JIRA page.[3]
Regards,
Gilles
[1] https://github.com/apache/commons-geometry/pull/2
[2] https://markmail.org/message/ipngs6ambxagdtb7
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GEOMETRY/issues/GEOMETRY-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
