[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-111?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17253617#comment-17253617
]
Matt Juntunen commented on GEOMETRY-111:
----------------------------------------
How would this affect the APIs? What would the {{Point}} and {{Vector}}
interfaces look like? Can you give a before/after example of how things would
be simplified?
> Metric interface instead of Point/Verctor interface [BREAKING CHANGE]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GEOMETRY-111
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-111
> Project: Apache Commons Geometry
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Baljit Singh
> Priority: Major
>
> Using a Point/Vector interface (especially, the self-bounded/referencing
> {{Point<P extends Point<P>>}}), leads to awkward use of Java generics in
> other classes. The need is understood in that it makes things "easier" within
> the subclasses, but it does make other APIs and method signatures a lot more
> complicated.
> Instead, I would propose a {{Metric<P>}} interface, with a single method
> {{double distance(P start, P end)}}. This makes the API a lot more flexible.
> For example, using the same point type ({{Vector3D}}), one can define two
> metrics (Euclidean distance for Cartesian space, and angle for Spherical
> space).
> I understand that it is difficult to prove the usability case, but I'm
> speaking from experience, having implemented both ways in other libraries.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
