commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject [math] Release planning, IOC-friendlyness
Date Sun, 13 May 2007 23:33:57 GMT
I think that modulo some cleanup, testing and review and the one
dangling item below, we should be ready for a [math] release.  I will
RM if no one else wants to, but would appreciate it (and support by
sharing gruntwork) if someone else volunteers.  Here are some
questions to resolve in the release plan:

1.  Is this 1.2 or 2.0?  There is so much in the added Mantissa
classes that 2.0 makes sense from a functionality standpoint.  On the
other hand, we have not broken backward compatibility with anything
(yet) and if we decide to go 2.0, we could consider some API change.
My vote is to keep compatibility in place, but still name it 2.0.

2. What if anything should we add to make "pluggability" as designed
in the library compatible with IOC frameworks?  It won't work to add
setters for the main factories, since we use the static getInstance
factory pattern (see e.g. UnivariateRealSoverFactory).  What might
make more sense would be to add setters for the individual solvers in
e.g. UnivariateRealSoverFactoryImpl.  Any ideas on how best to attack
this?  For those not familiar with [math] who may have ideas, the
basic setup is that we use abstract factories with static getInstance
methods that return concrete factories looked up using
commons-discovery.  The concrete factories themselves source multiple
different object types .

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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