Open wdconinc opened 2 years ago
@c-dilks Mostly affects your materials.
Couple of thoughts:
surface_properties.xml
alongside of material_properties.xml
, for the opticalsurface
s? At least the dRICH surface tables may grow in size soon... compact/materials
compact/materials/cherenkov.xml
for all of these; other similar subsystems could be grouped the same way. This would be useful if, for example, all of the RICHes want to use the same aerogel. On the other hand, more files means more places to look for thingssurface_properties.xml
sounds like a good idea.materials/
directory sounds like a good idea.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. There are currently two sets of material definitions, which will lead to overlapping entries (e.g. PbWO4 is moving in that direction with multiple definitions shared between optical and non-optical).
materials.xml
is a definition file for materials using the GDML schema.optical_materials.xml
uses the lccdd schema.There is no fundamental reasons to have two files, other than (possibly) readability due to optical property matrices (a possible split which does not lead to duplication could therefore be to keep those optical properties in a separate file).
Furthermore,
optical_materials.xml
contains more than materials, i.e. it contains optical surfaces.Describe the solution you'd like
material_properties.xml
file with tables of materials.materials.xml
file with all material definitions, which includeselements.xml
andmaterial_properties.xml
.Optical surface properties may need to move to dedicated subsystem files where they can be maintained, or need to be made generic. E.g.
MirrorSurface_DRICH
could be renamedAnomet_Miro_Silver
or whatever will be used.Describe alternatives you've considered Maintain the status quo...
Additional context This could be combined with #47.