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 simone.tripodi@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of simone.tripodi@gmail.com designates
 10.224.177.145 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.224.177.145;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: simone.tripodi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4F5242BF.6080205@dia.uniroma3.it>
References: 
 <CALznzY5WzQ99Rce44fuN=Zh4=Ze6+-0EJLSdS2bBhf7qxFQVYw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAqLGLMJuJ+fk5MnmpU0OeVfw6=b0Y4BfsFK4KtRobMXpQNW4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F508774.7080905@dia.uniroma3.it>
	<CAJwFCa3euPA4xORr_7Cz96M2SRg0KyFWeePXiB_GNB37Nwy3xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALznzY48XKjzMEPAkSt+zz-M6x_EVx0vavfvTYG3z-j0rmivEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F513A1F.1030103@dia.uniroma3.it>
	<CAAqLGLM2zHKDJYd3_mL=e=6zv24pQVy-XDJvZzqzC89PD6-+HQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F5167CB.4060306@dia.uniroma3.it>
	<CAAqLGLOmZxV7XrH=ujUnTnQCAgr-dPs03+Oezz5y7Tk33b3BbA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F521202.7010207@dia.uniroma3.it>
	<CAAqLGLNELNRr8HrEacrjqVOUu3RYLta5YPTgC94-ZBWGyz-FDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F52236C.9000708@dia.uniroma3.it>
	<CAAqLGLPr__7qAUW7MLHEHvrXF0ZyXKnrcfVVRV7Z0QVYSbmJ5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F5242BF.6080205@dia.uniroma3.it>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 17:13:38 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAAqLGLNe+Hh9=djicEzYuPUwCCdpneXsxCe8ncQsiU1wr9=KJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [graph] Why the Vertex and Edge interfaces?
From: Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

please follow up code modifications on SANDBOX-404

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Claudio Squarcella
<squarcel@dia.uniroma3.it> wrote:
> Hi Simone,
>
> answering briefly below:
>
>
>> Vertex is something we can safety drop because we
>> know its nature at priori, markers are unnecessary.This is fine.
>
>
> +1.
>
>
>> what is the sense, at that point, on keeping the Edge?!! It would be
>> more than enough to know which is the Head and which is the Tail in
>> the Edge to get the W!
>
>
> good observation. My 2 cents: it might still make sense for users to map
> their existing domain (including "edges") to the graph (e.g. Routers to
> Vertices and Cables to Edges) and "get it back" as soon as they are done
> with graph operations (e.g. once they find the shortest path, they
> automatically have the sequence of Cables they need).
>
>> maybe because they implement OrderedMonoid? :)
>> [...]
>>
>> how much would Addition and Multiplication interface differ each other?
>> [...]
>> that would be fine, what is not clear is that Monoids expose the same
>> interface, so *Operations class implementation canot declare same
>> method multiple times
>
>
> answering all the above: that is another reason why I would like our current
> Monoid to be called Addition (and Addition#sum instead of Monoid#append,
> etc), so that it is semantically clearer and later we can introduce
> Multiplication as a completely independent interface.
>
>
>> enough talk IMHO, time to code and make concrete proposals
>
>
> Sure!
> I'll play with weights first, because I already know what I want to do.
> As for Vertex/Edge markers I still see valuable feedback coming in, so I'll
> wait a bit.
>
> Branching is ok -- especially for the second part which sounds like a real
> earthquake ;)
>
>
> Ciao,
> Claudio
>
> --
> Claudio Squarcella
> PhD student at Roma Tre University
> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel
> http://squarcella.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

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