commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Cooper <>
Subject Re: [math] JAMA update and options
Date Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:17:58 GMT
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:58:29 -0500, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:24:06 -0500, Mark Diggory <> wrote:
> >
> >>Even if we have to go through the incubator, I'm convinced that adding
> >>the JAMA codebase into the math library is the best option. IMHO, I'm
> >
> >
> > Can't see why the Incubator would be needed if the aim was to go from
> > Apache/Jakarta/Commons/Math to Apache/Jakarta/Math.
> >
> >  If it was to goto Apache/Math, might be a it more needed in terms of
> > community discussion etc.
> >
> There are two things going on here. One is is deciding where [math] is
> going. Agreed that just moving to Jakarta/Math or even Apache/Math
> really has nothing to do with the incubator. We should probably discuss
> this on a different thread.
> What *does* potentially have to do with the incubator is bringing in a
> substantial code base and hopefully (IMHO) some new contributors.  This
> would be analogous to DB/Axiom and other cases where contributed code
> bases were incubated for eventual inclusion in existing projects.

You mean Axion. A humourous slip on a [math] thread. ;-)

> If we bring in the entire JAMA code base, seems to me we would have to
> bring it through the incubator. Correct me if I am wrong.
> >
> >>convinced that while the JAMA folks were very generous and open to
> >>providing the codebase to the public domain, that further enhancing its
> >>capabilities and providing any user support is not really in their
> >>interest. It would be far more in our interest if we forked the codebase
> >>and supported it.
> >
> >
> > +1 assuming they're not actively supporting theirs anymore.
> But they *are* supporting the code. They are about to release a
> maintenance release with some bug fixes.
> >
> >
> >>Any suggestion that the "JAMA folks" would have to
> >>"agree" to this is not the nature of public domain, IMO reuse of public
> >>domain doesn't require any such acknowledgment, though we should
> >>liberally acknowledge their contribution wherever possible.
> >
> >
> > Or in the nature of the Apache licence. Still, it's polite to do so.
> > Having their blessing is good from a PR point of view of a fork, it
> > makes us the good natured folk who are supporting the tool, and not
> > the evil baddies who are unwilling to work with the original.
> >
> > I assume that we'd still treat JAMA/RngPack as trademarks/names owned by others.
> >
> <snip/>
> >>Note, JAMA is not a large codebase, and is in the public domain. As
> >>such, does this really require the need for an "Incubator project"?
> >
> >
> > Creation of might.
> Lets not mix the discussion of these two.  For now, let's just assume we
> are bringing the code into commons-math.
> >
> > If the JAMA/NIST community were moving their code over to,
> > then it definitely would. As it is it sounds like we're just talking
> > about an existing part of the Apache community forking a piece of code
> > to use within their exisitng community.
> >
> > Incubation is really about communities and not code, so if the
> > community is already incubated, I don't see why the code would have to
> > be.
> >
> > Would you be looking to pull in the whole thing, or just using the
> > JAMA/NIST code as a place to aquire some snippets/classes? I assume
> > there's a fair amount of duplication already?
> Not that much duplication exists. What we are *deciding* now is how much
> and how to pull it in. The options are as I described earlier in the thread:
> 0) snippets / classes as needed
> 1) jar dependency
> 2) full merge
> I am -0 on 2) without support from the JAMA developers or other
> volunteers.  The code base is not huge but some of the algorithms are
> nontrivial.

Wouldn't (0) be just a subset of (2), and thus lead to the same
potential maintenance issues, albeit on a smaller scale? That being
the case, it would seem to me that (1) might make the most sense, so
that each group ([math] and JAMA) can focus on its own code and not
have to worry too much about the other, other than where they come

Martin Cooper

> > While it's public domain, would we still treat it as a contribution
> > (albeit one we pull rather than a contributor push) and maintain a
> > note of contribution in the source or NOTICE?
> Yes, if we do 0), we would add attribution in NOTICE and class headers
> for classes including JAMA code.   JAMA folks would be fine with that.
> Phil
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message