Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <f2e8eedf0805141803s4d100a4bp9ea9932ec3d13c6c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:03:06 -0400
From: "James Carman" <james@carmanconsulting.com>
Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
In-Reply-To: <8a81b4af0805141555o183cfc06hb866a319c0f8909f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48271E89.2040502@free.fr>
	 <8a81b4af0805141555o183cfc06hb866a319c0f8909f@mail.gmail.com>

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