On 5/14/11 10:57 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 14/05/2011 16:03, Phil Steitz a écrit : >> On 5/14/11 2:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component, >>> Apache Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see >>> the thread about this creation here: >>> <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>). >>> >>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into >>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may >>> be a good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in >>> sandbox, in fact I already did all the necessary work to have a >>> working implementation, with tests and clean reports from >>> checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete for >>> dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an >>> implementation on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless >>> of the component hosting this package. So the component could be >>> promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside [math]. >>> >>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with >>> geometry, analysis, ode ...). >>> >>> Does this suggestion makes sense ? >> >> +1 to integrate this code into [math]. I don't think we need >> anything beyond lazy consensus to do this, since we are not creating >> a Commons proper component here. Lets just give others a little >> while to weigh in. >> >> I am on the fence re top level package vs subpackage of geometry, >> leaning toward the latter. Why would you consider it as not a >> natural part of geometry? > > We could put it there. In this case, we should probably move the > current classes that are 3D specific in a sub-package too. > > The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package > with 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one > o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one > o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean > packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD, > o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD. > > We could import bsp by changing o.a.c.bsp into > o.a.c.math.geometry, putting the existing math 3D classes into the > new o.a.c.math.euclidean.threeD package. This would open the > opportunity to add 2D classes (some people have asked me if we > would consider adding them). > > The next step I mentioned in my original post would be to add > later on o.a.c.math.sphere.oneD (for modeling planar angular > sectors) and o.a.c.math.sphere.twoD (for modeling geographic data). Why wouldn't all of these be subpackages of geometry? o.a.c.m.geometry.euclidean, o.a.c.m.geometry.sphere, etc?
Phil > > Luc > >> >> Phil >>> Luc >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
