Hi all, I'd like to propose an update to the Euclidean Point/Vector classes in the geometry project. We currently have a single CartesianXD class per dimension (eg, Cartesian2D) that implements both the Point and Vector interfaces. This is similar to the previous commons-math version where we had VectorXD classes that were also both Points and Vectors. The change to the current version was through discussion on MATH-1284 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1284). My proposal is to flip the current inheritance hierarchy so that the CartesianXD classes become the base classes for separate PointXD and VectorXD classes. PointXD classes only implement the Point interface and VectorXD classes only implement Vector. The Cartesian base classes contain the actual x, y, z coordinate values along with a few other common methods (such as getSpace()). For performance and convenience, we can create static methods in the VectorXD classes that accept the Cartesian base class instances, so that users can perform common vector operations using either type. For example, if you have a giant list of Points, these static methods would allow you to compute dot products without needing to convert the Point instances to Vectors first.
I've partially implemented this in a branch so you can get a better idea of what I'm picturing: https://github.com/darkma773r/commons-geometry/tree/point-vector. The commons-geometry-core and commons-geometry-euclidean sub-modules contain the changes. [https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/3809623?s=400&v=4]<https://github.com/darkma773r/commons-geometry/tree/point-vector> darkma773r/commons-geometry<https://github.com/darkma773r/commons-geometry/tree/point-vector> commons-geometry - Apache Commons Geometry github.com The main benefit I see from this approach is code clarity. The intent of the code seems much clearer to me when the names of the types exactly match what they represent mathematically. For example, one of the constructors for the Plane class currently looks like this: public Plane(final Cartesian3D p, final Cartesian3D normal, final double tolerance) With my proposed changes, it would look like this: public Plane(final Point3D p, final Vector3D normal, final double tolerance) The code is easier to read and the compiler will also help prevent algorithm errors. Thoughts? Regards, Matt Juntunen
