Re: Best way to define matrix4x4

[Ketan Mehta]

Thanks Kenton,

I will check both and prefer iterator version.

Ketan

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The version with a single repeated field (which presumably you expect to
> always have size 16) will be slightly more efficient on the wire and
> significantly more efficient in-memory (assuming you're using C++).
> I think you'll find the single repeated field version more usable, too --
> you can actually iterate through the contents rather than having to identify
> the all by name.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:51 PM, ketan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Which would be more compact representation for matrix:
>>
>> message MatrixR
>> {
>>   repeated double mat;  // has to ensure that it passes values
>> correctly etc.
>> }
>>
>> OR
>>
>> message RowVector
>> {
>>  required double rx = 1;
>>  required double ry = 2;
>>  required double rz = 3;
>>  required double rw = 4;
>> }
>>
>> message Matrix
>> {
>>  required RowVector r0 = 1;
>>  required RowVector r1 = 2;
>>  required RowVector r2 = 3;
>>  required RowVector r3 = 4;
>> }
>>
>> or any other efficient method?
>>
>> thx
>> Ketan
>> >>
>>
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Best way to define matrix4x4

[Kenton Varda]

The version with a single repeated field (which presumably you expect to
always have size 16) will be slightly more efficient on the wire and
significantly more efficient in-memory (assuming you're using C++).
I think you'll find the single repeated field version more usable, too --
you can actually iterate through the contents rather than having to identify
the all by name.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 1:51 PM, ketan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Which would be more compact representation for matrix:
>
> message MatrixR
> {
>   repeated double mat;  // has to ensure that it passes values
> correctly etc.
> }
>
> OR
>
> message RowVector
> {
>  required double rx = 1;
>  required double ry = 2;
>  required double rz = 3;
>  required double rw = 4;
> }
>
> message Matrix
> {
>  required RowVector r0 = 1;
>  required RowVector r1 = 2;
>  required RowVector r2 = 3;
>  required RowVector r3 = 4;
> }
>
> or any other efficient method?
>
> thx
> Ketan
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Best way to define matrix4x4

[ketan]

Hi,

Which would be more compact representation for matrix:

message MatrixR
{
   repeated double mat;  // has to ensure that it passes values
correctly etc.
}

OR

message RowVector
{
  required double rx = 1;
  required double ry = 2;
  required double rz = 3;
  required double rw = 4;
}

message Matrix
{
  required RowVector r0 = 1;
  required RowVector r1 = 2;
  required RowVector r2 = 3;
  required RowVector r3 = 4;
}

or any other efficient method?

thx
Ketan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---