Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Yannick.Tanguy@cnes.fr
 designates 132.149.22.2 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [math] Adding a new class to handle Matrix with 3 columns/rows
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 18:23:50 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <361FC7914008804ABCF286A3B003D0F6201219@cst-xch-004.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
In-reply-to: <4E303441.5070906@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [math] Adding a new class to handle Matrix with 3 columns/rows
Thread-Index: AcxMdUkGEkGPTTfHQ9mfR9W90mzHHgAypSfQ
References: 
 <361FC7914008804ABCF286A3B003D0F6201121@cst-xch-004.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
 <4E2FB7D3.3070507@free.fr>
 <361FC7914008804ABCF286A3B003D0F6201181@cst-xch-004.cnesnet.ad.cnes.fr>
 <20110727143005.GN2590@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <4E303441.5070906@gmail.com>
From: "Tanguy Yannick" <Yannick.Tanguy@cnes.fr>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>

On 7/27/11 7:30 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>>>>> In project SIRIUS (CNES), we have some need for a Matrix33 (3=20
>>>>> columns,
>>>>> 3
>>>>> rows) object. It is very common to use this kind of matrix to
apply=20
>>>>> rotation to a position vector (vector3D).
>>>>>
>>>>> The incompatibility between the Vector3D of geometry package and=20
>>>>> the matrix/vectors of the linear package is a lack that we propose

>>>>> to fill by creating a "Matrix33" in the geometry.threed package.
>>>> Looks finie to me.
>> Except for the name: "Matrix33" -> "Matrix3D".

+1 : ok to call it Matrix3D.

>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> We will also propose some new constructors to build gaps between=20
>>>>> this new matrix and the matrix of linear package.
>>>> Yes, having a way to change from one view to the other is a clear
need.
>>> Yes, we prefer to add a constructor from Array2DRowRealMatrix and a=20
>>> getter (that returns a Array2DRowRealMatrix) than to implement the=20
>>> whole interface RealMatrix
>> There are not that many methods. It's preferable to implement
"RealMatrix"
>> lest there will be two API eveolving independently.
>
>+1

The key point here is that the matrix from linear package are not
compatible with Vector3D.=20
-> This is the main point we wanted to solve by creating a new matrix
class.
So we have imagined three solutions :=20
a) inherit the RealMatrix, but we need to add a multiply(Vector3D v)
method and some other methods
b) create an adapter class which contains an Array2DRealMatrix : this
may be heavy because we need to implement other methods
c) create a rather small class with only a few methods that answer our
needs (multiplication with Vector3D, transposition, ...). This class
should also implement a specific constructor and a specific getter to
fill the gap with the RealMatrix.
  =20
The other advantage of the c) solution is that it allows to implement
faster operations.=20


Yannick

>
>> I'm sure that somebody will help implement the missing bits if
necessary.
>>
>>> (or inherit the AbstractMatrix).
>> At the moment, I tend to agree on this point, given what I've just=20
>> observed with this benchmark:
>
>+1 - the difference is expected, since AbstractRealMatrix has to use
>getters/setters and Array2DRowRealMatrix can do direct array access.  I
guess to maximize reuse a) the array-based operations could be extracted
into a static utils class somewhere and used by both impls or b) the new
class could extend Array2DRowRealMatrix.
>
>Phil


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