[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17366277#comment-17366277
]
Gilles Sadowski commented on GEOMETRY-125:
------------------------------------------
{quote}not all options would apply to all formats.
{quote}
Yes; it's the issue I mentioned in the discussion about the summation
implementations (NUMBERS-163): If the state's definitions differ, an enum may
not be a good way to go.
Or we could assume a full API and that some of the settings are no-op for some
of the implementations. (?)
> DoubleFormats Builder
> ---------------------
>
> Key: GEOMETRY-125
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-125
> Project: Apache Commons Geometry
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Matt Juntunen
> Priority: Major
>
> Use a {{Builder}} class in {{DoubleFormats}} to make the API more
> self-documenting. Ex:
> {code:java}
> // current
> DoubleFunction<String> def = DoubleFormats.createDefault(5, -3);
> DoubleFunction<String> sci = DoubleFormats.createScientific(5, -3);
> // new
> DoubleFunction<String> def = DoubleFormats.builder()
> .withMaxPrecision(5)
> .withMinExponent(-3)
> .build();
> DoubleFunction<String> sci = DoubleFormats.builder()
> .withMaxPrecision(5)
> .withMinExponent(-3)
> .buildScientific();
> {code}
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
