Hi Bajit, Thanks for your input. Can you please provide some examples of what you mean here? Why exactly should it be removed and how would that improve the API? The Point interface is the central interface of the geometry code and allows us to write algorithms that work across multiple spaces and dimensions (such as the partitioning code in o.a.c.geometry.core.partitioning). So, we would need a very strong argument in order to remove it.
Regards, Matt ________________________________ From: Singh, Baljit (GE Aviation, US) <balsi...@ge.com> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:20 AM To: dev@commons.apache.org Subject: [geometry] Remove Point interface Hello, I’m new to contributing to the Apache projects, so please ignore any rookie mistakes (like proposing new changes on JIRA). With that said, I proposed the following in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-49: Binding generic interfaces and classes with Point does not have any implications on most classes. Point interface should be removed. For classes that do require a distance method, there should be a Metric<P> (as in metric space) interface. This leads to a much cleaner and consistent API. Also semantically, a point is just a set of coordinates, and does not define distance... it is the metric that does. This also opens doors to further development, like differential geometry. Regards, Baljit Singh B�KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCB�� [��X��ܚX�KK[XZ[�]�][��X��ܚX�P��[[ۜ˘\X�K�ܙ�B��܈Y][ۘ[��[X[� �K[XZ[�]�Z[ ��[[ۜ˘\X�K�ܙ�B
