Hi Claudio > the method "discoveryEdge" currently tells whether or not the algorithm > should explore a subtree/branch and add related vertices to the stack/queue. > So I see no conflict in the implementation. Maybe you are saying that the > edge should be explored *right before* the vertex it leads to -- but why? > AFAIK a standard graph search is only concerned with *vertices*. In that > sense "finishEdge" becomes useless, as the responsibility for returning > prematurely is entirely covered by "finishVertex". Am I raving mad? :-) >
yes you are right, the visit should be only concerned the vertices, but in our implementation we added also the discoveryEdge that in a dfs has invoked like a BFS. This in my opinion can be frustrating for the user because the edge is not visit in depth but in breadth. So IMHO we should visit also the edge in depth, (only in a dfs of course) or remove the invocation of discover/finish edge that can get confused the user. have a nice day -- Marco Speranza <marcospera...@apache.org> Google Code: http://code.google.com/u/marco.speranza79/ Il giorno 26/feb/2012, alle ore 23:41, Claudio Squarcella ha scritto: > Hi, > >> Simo you are right, the vertices have visited in the right way, but the edge >> handler has called in the wrong way. IMHO we have to modify the code in >> order to fire the edge handler in the right way to avoid any error for the >> user. > > the method "discoveryEdge" currently tells whether or not the algorithm > should explore a subtree/branch and add related vertices to the stack/queue. > So I see no conflict in the implementation. Maybe you are saying that the > edge should be explored *right before* the vertex it leads to -- but why? > AFAIK a standard graph search is only concerned with *vertices*. In that > sense "finishEdge" becomes useless, as the responsibility for returning > prematurely is entirely covered by "finishVertex". Am I raving mad? :-) > >> It's a good idea, Now we have implemented two separate methods that visit >> the graph for dfs and bfs. We should do a little refactoring and implement a >> unique method that switches between dfs and bfs simply changing the the type >> of visitedVertex. WDYT? > > Yes! James' idea sounds good to me. > > Ciao, > Claudio > >>> I think "visitedVertices" should rather be called "seenVertices", as it is >>> only needed to avoid adding vertices more than once to the stack/queue. >>> Marco (and all), please see if the implementations look nicer with that >>> change in mind (looks good to me). >>> >> +1 > > -- > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
