commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brent Worden" <br...@worden.org>
Subject RE: [math] re: move to Apache Commons
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:28:52 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:steitzp@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:53 AM
> To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [math] re: move to Apache Commons
>
> I have always maintained
> that the simple lang-like extension stuff fits in Jakarta Commons, while
> the math/stat framework stuff does not.

I partially disagree with the framework comment. Mainly, because a precedent
has been set with commons-logging for allowing such a framework as
envisioned by the [math] members.  Quoting the [logging] home page: "The
Logging package is an ultra-thin bridge between different logging libraries.
Commons components may use the Logging API to remove compile-time and
run-time dependencies on any particular logging package, and contributors
may write Log implementations for the library of their choice."  I foresee
the proposed [math] API as providing the same purpose; providing a
mathematical API where contributors may write "implementations for the
library of their choice."

>  I think that it is to accommodate
> the framework and non-Java development ideas that Robert is recommending
> the move to Apache Commons.  I agree with him.

Any non-Java work definitely does not belong in Jakarta, Commons or
elsewhere.

> I would recommend, however,
> that the proposal be rewritten to reflect the broader scope.

No problem with that.  I will concede, that the [math] group is, IMO, trying
to take on too many endeavors at once and maybe a reality check is in order.

In the near-term for [math], this is what I would like to see:
1) a 1.0 release
2) expand on the 1.0 features for the next release (i.e. add more
distributions, hypothesis tests, root finders, etc.).
3) add ONE new math vertical/discipline for the next release.  For instance,
we could chose to add a FFT implementation which some people have expressed
a desire to have.
4) make another release.

For the long-term, I would just keep repeating that cycle.  I think this
would keep the [math] contributors primarily focused on the things you care
about, the mathUtils portion, and with some attention allotted to broadening
[math] into the package of our dreams (or nightmares depending on your point
of view).

Brent Worden
http://www.brent.worden.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message