Hello Marco,
I understand and agree with you about your doubts - I don't have a
strong idea, anyway I wouldn't take the *Handler as first choice,
since it does not drive users to an event-handler alike programming
model, rather *Operations makes more sense...
+1
c00l :)
Furthermore I think that name of classes are congruent. In my opinion
Monoid, OrderMonoid and Semigroup are the right names
I agree.
findMaxFlow( graph ).from( a ).to( g
).applyingEdmondsKarp.withWeightOperation( new IntegerOperation() ) or
something like that.
I would be more radical (chic) and add one shortcut for each primitive
weight type allowed, e.g:
findMaxFlow( graph ).from( a ).to( g
).applyingEdmondsKarp().usingWeightsAsIntegers()
findMaxFlow( graph ).from( a ).to( g
).applyingEdmondsKarp().usingWeightsAsDoubles()
[...]
I know it's damn redundant. It would be nice to have a better shortcut
to automagically use primitive weight operations when available and
require an explicit *Operations otherwise, but it's not an easy task
(not for me at least).
Note also that some algorithms may impose limits on the actual types
(e.g. Ford-Fulkerson may not terminate with irrational numbers...
although with floating point representation I guess we never face that
risk), so creating explicit shortcuts could also reflect such constraints.
Would it be so terrible to maintain such redundancy?
--
Claudio Squarcella
PhD student at Roma Tre University
http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
http://squarcella.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
