Hi dev'ils. [1] A little while back there was a discussion on this list about the future of the diverse vertex data objects. I can't remember that any definitive concusion was reached, so I thought I'd stick my neck out and reopen the subject. I've just rewritten BrTPMClusterVertexModule - that is I've cleaned up the code quite a lot - and I'd like some feedback on this before I commit it. I'm partial to making three vertex objects: BrTpcVertex BrBbVertex BrZdcVertex all deriving directly from BrDataObject. I don't think that the overlap between their members (a z position!) warrants a common BrVertex base class, and certainly not the current BrVertex which contains diverse strange tpc stuff. I therefore propose the following: * Rename BrVertex to BrTpcVertex, and only include a data member stating wether it comes from clusters or tracks. * Make BrBbVertex derive from BrDataObject and add the relevant members/functions * Have Andrei make a BrZdcVertex, as he's currently working on all the other zdc stuff as well. The alternative to this, as I see it, is to keep a class BrVertex but still remove the tpc-specific stuff from its current incarnation and making a BrTpcVertex anyway. This is of course just as easy to do, but I don't quite see the reasons for doing this. All right - I expect there are still views on this on this list. Please respond :-) [1] Hmmm... Perhaps it's time to stop this greeting-game? ;-) ------------------------------------------------ Bjorn H. Samset PhD student in Heavy Ion physics Mob: +47 92 05 19 98 Office: +47 22 85 64 65 Adr: Schouterrassen 6 0573 Oslo Norway
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 09 2001 - 19:02:54 EST