commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
Date Thu, 15 May 2008 01:03:06 GMT
Would it be better to make it Math 2.0?  With a language level change
like that, it should probably be a new major version.  You should also
consider putting the stuff in org.apache.commons.math2 packages to
avoid "jar hell" issues.

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>> Mauro Talevi recently proposed a new package for general linear regression
>> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-203). This patch needs Java 5,
>> mainly for annotations.
>>
>> Mauro suggested to take the opportunity of the next [math] major version to
>> switch to Java 5. A major version seems appropriate for such a change, but
>> do we want to do it now ?
>>
>> My personal opinion is that sticking to Java 1.3 is really obsolete and
>> difficult. When I upgraded my Linux box recently, I had to search old
>> backups to reinstall a JDK manually. Dropping this could simplify some codes
>> (exceptions for example) and fix some errors (there is a known issue with
>> unit tests since Java 1.3 does not compute trigonometric functions as it
>> should).
>>
>> If we decide to change minimal Java version, I would choose to target 1.5.
>> It is widely adopted and deployed now and has many features which would be
>> useful for a mathematical library:
>>    - new Math functions (log10, cbrt, ulp, signum, cosh, sinh, tanh, hypot,
>> expm1, log1p)
>>    - autoboxing
>>    - MathContext, RoundingMode
>> In addition, there are the many features that are interesting for any type
>> of Java development (enums, generics, annotations).
>>
>> Java 6 brings even more Math functions (copysign, getExponent, nextAfter,
>> nextUp, scalb), some of which we needed to add ourselves in MathUtils.
>> However, I'm not sure it is as widely deployed than Java5.
>>
>> Perhaps Java 7 would bring even more functions (asinh, acosh and atanh are
>> still missing ...)
>>
>> What do you think ?
>
> I agree that moving to 1.5 minimum in 2.0 would be OK.  The only thing
> that bugs me is that there is a fair amount of (mostly Mantissa) stuff
> queued up for 2.0 that does not require 1.5.  I wonder how many users
> of the new stuff will still be on < 1.5.  Probably not many, so I am
> +1 for requiring 1.5+ for 2.0.
>
> Phil
>
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message