|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | Add constant acceleration mobility model | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | ns-3 | Reporter: | Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjcarneiro> |
| Component: | mobility models | Assignee: | Mathieu Lacage <mathieu.lacage> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | ns-bugs, tomh |
| Priority: | P5 | ||
| Version: | ns-3-dev | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Attachments: | the patch | ||
this patch looks good to me. I am not too fond of the naming from a consistency perspective: if you want to use 'Constant' instead of 'Static', we need to change the existing 'Static' models. Otherwise, I would tend to rename your 'Constant' into 'Static'. What do you prefer ? I'd rename StaticSpeedMobilityModel to ConstantSpeedMobilityModel. But StaticMobilityModel should of course remain unchanged; it really is static, so the name makes perfect sense. (In reply to comment #2) > I'd rename StaticSpeedMobilityModel to ConstantSpeedMobilityModel. But > StaticMobilityModel should of course remain unchanged; it really is static, so > the name makes perfect sense. > hrm. How about ConstantPositionMobilityModel, ConstantSpeedMobilityModel, and, ConstantAccelerationMobilityModel ? (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I'd rename StaticSpeedMobilityModel to ConstantSpeedMobilityModel. But > > StaticMobilityModel should of course remain unchanged; it really is static, so > > the name makes perfect sense. > > > > hrm. How about ConstantPositionMobilityModel, ConstantSpeedMobilityModel, and, > ConstantAccelerationMobilityModel ? > That sounds good. But it is a lot of API change. While it won't affect me personally (since I'll keep using a patched ns 3.2), maybe it's better to ask in ns-developers? And this change would be for ns-3.4 or later? changeset e57ced8f6660 |
Created attachment 364 [details] the patch I wrote a ConstantAccelerationMobilityModel which could be useful to others.