Thanks Jan,
I'll have a look at LCIOTrackParameters. The reason I used
DocaTrackParameters was that I needed a simple solution for a very simple
job - basically interfacing our own Track class to WIRED - and with minor
tweaking, it was good enough for that.
As for communicating our findings, I think we have been talking about
improving Track and TrackerHit interfaces ever since last Snowmass...
Best Regards,
- Dima.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Strube, Jan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Onoprienko, Dmitry" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "von Toerne, Eckhard" <[log in to unmask]>; "lcd-dev"
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: FW: Request of changes to DocaTrackParameters
Hi Dima,
In that case please have a look at LCIOTrackParameters in my package.
The class provides static methods for the parameter conversion.
The Driver in the package should require only minor modifications to put
in org.lcsim.event.Track objects into the event. That was actually the
purpose for its creation. I can re-enable that, if you want.
To be honest, I don't know why you would want to use DocaTrackParamters
when you yourself acknowledge that it's broken. There are no unit tests
for the package and no maintainer.
On the other hand the code in org.lcsim.contrib.JanStrube.tracking has
unit tests associated with it which are part of the official test suit
and run at every checkin. It is certainly stable from a functional point
of view, and it even passes tests that are not part of the main suite.
Also, please try to communicate your findings about shortcomings of the
code to the developers. They are working very hard to produce stable and
useful code and are doing a very good job, despite the fact that there
is a acute shortage in manpower. An extra pair of eyes (and hands)
always helps in improving the quality of the code for everybody. I am
sure that there are many occasional users who are unaware of your
findings and who could benefit from that feedback.
Best,
Jan
|