On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:59, Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Thursday 28 November 2002 10:00, Fabian Dortu wrote: > > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 18:50, Miguel Howard wrote: > > > I think that some of the code that is in the old Atom.java should be > > > moved out of there. > > > For example, all the references to transform and screenPosition (and > > > screenX/Y/Z/Diameter) should be part of AtomShape, not part of the basic > > > Atom representation. > > > > I agree. I my UnitBox class, I did not use the Atom class because it was > > consuming to much memory unnecessary. > > Except for that mentioned by Miguel, can you elaborate on other issues you > have with Atom? I would like very much to have the UnitBox use the Atom > class...
Actually, my first version of UnitBox was using Atom but the memory usage was more than 2 times bigger (maybe more). Moving screenX/Y/Z/Diamater elsewhere should solve the problem - at least partly. No other issues. Fabian > > Egon -- Fabian Dortu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
