Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <3FAC0467.2060005@latte.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:45:27 -0500
From: "Mark R. Diggory" <mdiggory@latte.harvard.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031030
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] interface for UnivariateRealFunction (differentiability)
References: 
 <20031107123307.19777.h018.c000.wm@mail.worden.org.criticalpath.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <20031107123307.19777.h018.c000.wm@mail.worden.org.criticalpath.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Not attached to this, a Differentiable Interface would be acceptable to 
me too.

On another subject, maybe because of my naivety, why are these 
interfaces called "UnivariateRealFunction" and not simply something more 
generic like RealFunction? I say this strictly because of what I 
consider an overuse of the term "Univariate" in many of our Classnames...

-Mark

brent@worden.org wrote:

> The CubicSplineFunction is the only place, that I'm aware of, that
> truly implements these methods.  Also, these method are never called
> anywhere in the code, save the unit tests.  This includes calls
> through either the interface or the concrete classes.
> 
> As I see it we have three choices:
> 1) let it as is
> 2) add a differentiable interface per Mike's suggestion.
> 3) remove the derivative methods from the interface and keep them only
> on CubicSplineFunction.
> 
> In order of preference, I choose 2, 1, 3.
> 
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:02:46 -0500, "Mark R. Diggory" wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>brent@worden.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What is the purpose for having the firstDerivative() and 
>>>>secondDerivative() methods on a UnivariateRealFunction ?
>>>
>>>
>>>One of the interpolating routines use the first and second
>>
>>derivatives.
>>
>>>
>>>>It is a little troubling to me to have at this level (perhaps if
>>>>needed a subclass such as UnivariateDifferentiableRealFunction ).
>>>
>>>
>>>This might be a good idea.  When I used the solvers to evaluate the
>>>inverse cumulative distribution functions, I found the
>>>UnivariateRealFunction interface a bit cumbersome for my needs.
>>>
>>
>>Some methods do not neccessarily need to be exposed via an interface
>>if 
>>they are used internally. While some UnivariateRealFunction 
>>implementations may require this capability, is it required to be in
>>the 
>>interface?
>>
>>-Mark
>>
>>-- 
>>Mark Diggory
>>Software Developer
>>Harvard MIT Data Center
>>http://osprey.hmdc.harvard.edu
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> Brent Worden
> http://www.brent.worden.org/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 

-- 
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://osprey.hmdc.harvard.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org