commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz" <>
Subject Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial release
Date Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:57:54 GMT
Brent Worden wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: J.Pietschmann []
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:06 PM
>>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>>Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial
>>Al Chou wrote:
>>>Finally, having used the Pietschmann root finder framework, I
>>think it needs
>>>some modification to make it more user-friendly.  As a lay
>>user, I would have
>>>been much happier dealing with Brent W.'s interface than Herr
>>>which was kind of cumbersome.  I think, though, with a little
>>slimming down, it
>>>would be quite workable.
>>I'm interested in hearung a few more details: what makes the
>>framework cumbersome? Admittedly I didn't have time yet to
>>look at Brent's framework.
> For clarification, I never meant for the bisection method to be the end-all
> for root finding.  I just needed something to facilitate the distribution
> implementations.  

Works like a champ ;-)  I am having fun with these. I am thinking about 
publishing some critical value tables with the apache liscense. he he.

> I would prefer using J's object approach to the static
> method any day, if for no reason then because of the inflexibility of static
> methods.  They can't be overriden, they can't hold on to any state (a nice
> feature in J's work), they can't be subclassed, ..

This is an important point.  Despite my recent advocacy for a small set 
of static "util" methods, I strongly agree that we should never 
implement complex algorithms in static methods and we should in general 
   avoid statics for the reasons that you give above.
> That being said, any design can be approved on (sorry J, even yours), but
> the flavor of the object approach is, IMO, more agreeable than the static
> method approach.  It also is inline with the direction most of the library
> is beginning to take; complex algorithms encapsulated in strategy type
> objects which are interchangeable through a common interface.

I agree.  It would be nice to get J's framework in and refactor your 
Dist stuff to use it.  I would be OK with just including Bisection and 
Secant as initial implementations.  Other implementations could be added 
by us or users later.


> Brent Worden
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message