commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] top-level package name
Date Thu, 21 May 2009 10:08:32 GMT
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> sebb a écrit :
>   
>> On 19/05/2009, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:53 AM,  <luc.maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>>>  > Hello,
>>>  >
>>>  > Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes
that have been done on [math] for the last months belong to the major changes with large incompatibilities
with previous versions.
>>>       
>> Are you sure that there are large incompatibilities?
>>     
>
> Yes. There have been several packages reorganizations in analysis, ode,
> linear and optimization by adding subpackages and moving classes. There
> have been some renamed classes (mainly in ode). There have been very
> large changes in linear and optimization (almost all classes have
> changed I think) and new methods have been added to interfaces. Every
> deprecated API from 1.x have been removed.
>
> When possible, the old API have been simply deprecated so they can be
> removed later, but it was not always possible (I don't remember each
> case, sorry).
>
> As suggested by Hen, I ran a clirr report with respect to 1.2, it
> triggered 183 errors (including the deprecated methods that have been
> removed).
>
>
>   
>> I thought you were trying to preserve API compatibility?
>>     
>
> Yes, for minor versions. However, since there were some needed changes
> in ode and linear, we decided to take the opportunity to concentrate all
> changes in one move once it had been decided to start.
>
>   
>>> We have already decided that the version number will be 2.0 to acknowledge that.
I know of at least one big international research project that uses commons-math 1.2 and will
switch to 2.0 when it will be published. They have already faced compatibility problems recently
(two days ago).
>>>  >
>>>  > Should we change the top level package name from org.apache.commons.math
to org.apache.commons.math2 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say yes.
>>>
>>>       
>> In that case, it should be OK to break compatibility in the Frequency
>> class by requiring that parameters be Comparable rather than Object -
>> see MATH-259 & MATH-261 - which will improve compile-time safety.
>>     
>
> As far as I am concerned, I'll say yes. In fact, I was even wondering
> why stopping the changes here when we have the opportunity.
>   

I am OK with this one after testing my own code (with user hat on), 
which does not break.  I was against it at first since I want us to 
stick with the principle of minimizing incompatible change.
> 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
>
>   


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


Mime
View raw message