Hi Peter and everybody,
Got it. I know exactly what you mean. Thank
you for your reply.
Also thanks to Peter Vanroose for his
We will try two solutions. The first one is
as you said, make a few required duplications and completely separate the 2D and
3D hierarchy. This is probably the easiest one.
The other is, make a base class
vtol_topology_object, but do NOT inherit it from vsol_spatial_object.
Instead, use a pointer to point to the vsol_spatial_object as a data member.
This solution still needs some duplication in the member functions (mimic
from the spatial object class). It would required deep understanding of the
whole vtol library, and I don't know this will work without more trouble or
I would say, fist try solution I (make
necessary code duplication to separate 2D/3D). My colleague and I will make sure
it fully compiles and works. Then we will write a summary of changes to the
community and commit the code.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:06
Subject: RE: [Vxl-maintainers] Question
about vtol in 3D
wrote much of the initial vtol libraries. As you say much of the original
design was to avoid duplication of code
multiple dimensions. One down side of this decision is that this resulted in
an increase in the amount of
inheritance which has runtime issues - not to mention the ambiguity
involved with spatial object classes.
this point I would agree that two different hierarchies for 2D and 3D would
makes sense - even though this
means code duplication.