Le 11/08/2011 10:55, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
2011/8/11 Arne Ploese<aplo...@gmx.de>:
So you not only want to observe the result, but you want a read only
RealVector.
That's right. I'm sorry, my first message was not clear, especially if
you did not follow the thread on iterative solvers.
I want to observe the *solver*, and the current state of the solver is
a *RealVector*, which should by no means be modified by the observer.
The safest way to do that would be for the solver to have a method
like
public RealVector getCurrentSolution(){
return x.copy();
}
but that takes both time and memory. So I was thinking of something more like
public RealVector getCurrentSolution(){
return new ReadOnlyRealVector(x);
}
which takes virtually no additional memory (and presumably very little
time). The two advantages of this approach are
* it does not jeopardize the whole hierarchy tree, since you do not
have to create a new interface,
* it is quite general, and could be adopted for any base object (not
only RealVector).
The downside is that some methods throw exceptions, which might be
deemed dirty. I don't really know.
Well, in fact I would very much like to have immutable vectors too.
Immutability is really a way to simplify implementations. Surprisingly
it sometimes also decrease time and memory consumption, because
defensive copies littering user code can be avoided.
Jeopardizing the hierarchy tree is not a problem IMHO.
Luc
S
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
