commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Barker" <>
Subject Re: [math] Questions about the linear package
Date Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:18:46 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Dunning" <>
To: "Commons Developers List" <>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, <> wrote:
>> we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if
>> someone did really create a class that implements RealVector, he would
>> simply have to say it extends AbstractRealVector instead. So there is a
>> clear gain to accept this kind of incompatible change as soon as 2.1.
>> What do other people think about this ?
> I think that what you say is exactly right.

I'm +1 on this (including being willing to help).  Like Luc, I don't believe 
that there are very many people implementing custom versons of these 

>> Perhaps we should also deprecate the gazillion maptXxx and ebeXxx 
>> methods,
>> I'm not sure.
> I am on the fence on this.  I tend to prefer general methods such as Jake
> describes, but I have also seen people be confused by them.  I do think 
> that
> a narrower interface is good along with an AbstractRealVector 
> implementation
> based on the underlying general call.  The general call should also
> recognized some special cases and optimize them.

I'm +1 to deprecate these methods in 2.x, but -1* on removing them from the 
interface before 3.0.  There is a high expectation for commons projects that 
you can upgrade to minor versions by just dropping in the new jar file.

*) This is a vote, not a veto (especially since I can't veto anyway).

> What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of
> these mapXXX methods?
> -- 
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve

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

View raw message