[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-23?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16674190#comment-16674190
]
Matt Juntunen commented on GEOMETRY-23:
---------------------------------------
It looks doubtful that we'll get any feedback from my post on the dev mailing
list, so I guess it's just up to us here. Bummer.
My main sticking point on this issue is that I want the names of our
classes/methods to be in line with other geometry-related libraries. Every
library I've seen uses some version of a "vector" name (eg, {{Vector3f}},
{{Vector3}}, {{vec3}}) to represent points and vectors. These classes also
invariably use Cartesian coordinates. This includes GLSL, Three.js, G3D, the
Unity game engine, the JMonkey game engine, the Bullet physics engine,
commons-math, etc. I'd like commons-geometry to follow this industry-standard
convention.
On a related note, I've thought about your points as they relate to the
transform code I'm working on now and I think that I could make some changes
there in order to better reflect the mathematical realities. So far I've
changed {{AffineTransform?D}} to {{TransformMatrix?D}}, since matrices are only
one way to implement affine transforms; and {{Rotation}} to
{{QuaternionRotation}}, since I'm also planning on implementing rotations
through Euler angles. These can be found at
https://github.com/darkma773r/commons-geometry/tree/transforms. I only mention
this to say that I think you have a point with what you're saying; I just want
to keep our vector/point classes (the most basic building in our library) in
line with industry standards.
What are your thoughts? As far as the coordinate conversion thing, I'm
picturing that as a separate ticket. I'll let you create that, since I like it
the way it is:-)
> Remove Euclidean Point Classes
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: GEOMETRY-23
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-23
> Project: Apache Commons Geometry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Matt Juntunen
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> Based on discussion of the current Point/Vector API in GEOMETRY-14 and
> research into other geometric libraries, I think we should remove the
> Euclidean Point?D classes and make Vector?D also implement Point. This will
> end up being similar to the previous commons-math design but avoids the issue
> raised in MATH-1284 since the Point and Vector interfaces are not related.
> They just happen to be implemented by the same class, which we're calling
> Vector?D since a vector can be used to indicate a point (by adding it to the
> origin).
> In the course of trying this out this design, I ended up removing 7 classes
> and simplifying several methods. I think that's a good indicator that this is
> a good design choice.
>
> Pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-geometry/pull/15
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
