J.D.:
>Yes you can use transform3ds directly on Vector3f, Point3f, etc. Which
>comes handy IMHO. I use it from time to time without a TG.
So you can. I admit I'd missed that.
A.R.T-C.:
> In addition, one of the heuristics for OO design is to make each class
> represent one concept. Combining the two concepts into one class
> would result in a much larger, less-understandable interface.
But this is really my problem: To my mind, the Transform3D is an integral
part of the TransformGroup concept. It's hardly a transform group if it
doesn't have a transform, is it? It's just a group. So putting them
together wouldn't be combining two concepts into one class, to my mind at
least. It would be putting the two essential aspects of one concept into a
single class.
Still, I guess the fact that Transform3D has potential uses independent of
the Group node means that it makes some kind of sense for it to be a class
of its own - even if it would have been perfectly possible for a single
Transform class to do exactly the same things.
Cheers for your thoughts
- Fergus.
http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
