Hello.
Le ven. 2 sept. 2022 à 19:01, <michael.sch...@dlr.de> a écrit :
>
> Thank you Gilles for your detailed response!
>
> Gilles wrote:
> > [...]
> > How about "SplineInterpolator" provide a factory method to select one or the
> > other implementation?
> > I.e. something like
> > ---CUT---
> > public SplineInterpolator implements UnivariateInterpolator {
> > /** Interpolation algorithm variant. */
> > private final BiFunction<double[], double[], UnivariateFunction> algo;
> >
> > /**
> > * Factory method.
> > * @param clamped ...
> > * @return a new interpolator instance.
> > */
> > public static SplineInterpolator create(boolean clamped) {
> > if (clamped) {
> > algo = new Clamped();
> > } else {
> > algo = new Unclamped();
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @Override
> > public PolynomialSplineFunction interpolate(double[] x, double[] y) {
> > return algo.apply(x, y);
> > }
> >
> > private static class Unclamped
> > implements BiFunction<double[], double[], PolynomialSplineFunction>
> > {
> > // ... current implementation ...
> > }
> >
> > private static class Clamped
> > implements BiFunction<double[], double[], PolynomialSplineFunction>
> > {
> > // ... your proposed functionality ...
> > }
> >
> > // Commons functions ...
> > }
> > ---CUT---
>
> I like your idea of a factory method for "SplineInterpolator" but am not sure
> whether it will provide any benefit. The newly proposed "clamped" spline
> requires two additional boundary conditions specifying the slopes at each
> interpolation run and thus, simply overloading of the interpolate(...)
> function of interface UnivariateInterpolator to accept two additional
> parameters seems to be an attractive approach. Something like this:
>
> ---CUT---8<---
> public class SplineInterpolator implements UnivariateInterpolator {
>
> @Override
> public PolynomialSplineFunction interpolate(double[] x, double[] y) {
> // ... current default implementation of unclamped spline ...
> }
>
> public PolynomialSplineFunction interpolate(double[] x, double[] y,
> double startSlope, double endSlope) {
> // ... newly proposed clamped spline variant ...
> }
>
> // Commons functions ...
> }
> --->8---CUT---
>
> Is this still complying with the library design or will it break hearts? What
> do you think? If we wanted to specify the additional slope parameters in your
> factory method approach, these parameters would have to be passed initially
> during creation of the new BiFunction object and thus would require a
> re-creation of the whole object for each new interpolation run with just
> varying slope parameters. I'm not sure if this "overhead" is desired :D
Could you perhaps open a JIRA[1] report? You can then attach a patch,
with use cases, from which we can further discuss what API changes
would best handle them.
Regards,
Gilles
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
