Talk:Geometry and Physics VAG
Revision as of 07:36, 18 October 2007 by Dzonatas Sol (talk | contribs)
- For now, I think geometry and physics are too closely related to be split. However, I can certainly understand a perspective that there might be two closely related viewpoints here. Geometry really doesn't need material properity information or have to participate in a physics engine. On the other hand, physics really has not meaning at the user level without something to act on. So in the end, I see geometry that has optional physical properties and a single viewpoint the covers both. Do others have thoughts on this? --Burhop Piccard 19:04, 16 October 2007 (PDT)
- I liked the structure of your VAG and so used it as a template for Scalability and QA VAGs ... well done. :-) --Morgaine Dinova 02:56, 18 October 2007 (PDT)
- Always good to be emulated :-) BTW, I tweaked the usecase part a bit to hopefully give a bit of structure. --Burhop Piccard 06:32, 18 October 2007 (PDT)
- The use of the name VAG is unofficial still. There are issues about it that have gone unanswered as a "group" structure. The use of these "VAGs" in their current state is like force implementation without any design. The concerns are expressed about the VAGs being implemented, but they are not being addressed. If that kind of progress mimics any future software design and implementation, I'd say this already demonstrates that goals won't be followed. I hope that not be the case, and I urge that these VAGs evolve into a methodology that can follow the goals. I think you, Burhop, have put a lot of work into this and it deserves the right attention and implementation. Dzonatas Sol 07:36, 18 October 2007 (PDT)