Hello.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> public interface ConvexHull<S extends Space> {
> >> Vector<S>[] generate(Vector<S>[] points);
> >> }
> >
> > I think that you should use "List" instead of arrays (even "Iterable"
> > whenever possible); it will be plainly more flexible. Just a little
> > thought...
>
> I have now several implementations of at least 2D algorithms with this
> interface:
>
> Iterable<Vector2D> generate(Iterable<Vector2D> points)
>
> which works, but I find it quite cumbersome for the following reasons:
>
> * Iterable obviously does not provide a size() method which is quite
> handy in the algorithms
>
> * the addAll() method of collections is not defined for Iterable, but
> only for Collection
If the algorithm needs some API to perform decently, it's fair to require
it.
>
> So I would better opt for an interface like:
>
> Iterable<Vector2D> generate(Collection<Vector2D> points)
>
> The output may be an Iterable as it is ordered, a Collection might give
> a wrong impression to the user (a Collection is not sorted per se,
> although the same is true for Iterable, hmm)
I don't understand; should the output be sortable?
> What do you think?
Not mixing different types makes the API simpler; the prototype could be
Collection<Vector2D> generate(Collection<Vector2D> points)
or
List<Vector2D> generate(List<Vector2D> points)
[Also, usability is enhanced by arguments as abstract as possible, but the
returned value's concreteness is only limited by the developer's willingness
to not be tied to a specific data structure.]
If the answer to the above question is yes, then the second prototype makes
more sense.
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
