commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:58:31 GMT
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>wrote:

> This is interesting. We have a raft of mathematically qualified
> committers on Mahout, and this message asking for help on
> commons-math, and a raft of code marooned at mahout that wants to be
> in commons math. If I were one of those mathematically competant
> individuals, I'd be off attaching a patch or three to a JIRA or two
>

The commons-math linear APIs have been described as effectively locked
until 3.0, due to back-compat requirements.  This means that any code
contributed
into c-math would live in a parallel (no pun intended) to the linear
primitives which
exist already in there.

Adopting something like MTJ or Colt in Mahout turned out to be easier,
because
we are on release 0.2 (heading for 0.3 now), and have less stringent
back-compat
requirements, so we are overhauling our linear apis (read: even user-facing
interface changes) to take advantage of useful parts of Colt, and are
planning on
using our Colt fork as the underlying implementation.

Commons-math expressed that changing linear APIs is not something they can
do,
given the maturity of their library, so where would Colt *go* in c-math?
It's own
submodule, having its own eigendecompositions and svd and so forth, running
parallel to the current c-math impls?  Why?

Who would maintain it and write tests for it, and how do you explain to
end-users which they should use?



> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>
> wrote:
> > Ted Dunning a écrit :
> >> Actually, the reason that we have Colt in Mahout is it has proven
> impossible
> >> to get changes into commons math.  We really, really wanted to use
> commons
> >> math rather than have our own linear algebra package, but it just proved
> >> impossible and we didn't want to wait forever.
> >
> > If you really, really wants to use commons math and want changes to be
> > included, contribute them.
>

I have submitted patches for the following tickets: MATH-312 (and acceptance
of that patch blocks my patch for MATH-314), MATH-316 and MATH-317, none
of which have appear to have had much progress on.  All of my patches come
with unit tests for new functionality.

On the other hand, when I opened the discussion about extending the
functions
package to enable composable functions (MATH-313), I got an entirely hostile
response, which only tempered as far as "+0" on adding it after discussion.

In particular, my first step at making commons-math something Mahout could
standardize on for linear work was MATH-312, which I did submit a patch for,
and revised it many times after discussion about what is acceptable practice
in c-math.  Not yet applied, months later.  It's probably far out of date
now...

Similarly, when I tried to ask what the status on decisions on whether to
adopt
MTJ or Colt, the statement by Phil was basically that commons-math would not
adopt anything which had any external dependencies or
not-easily-human-readable java source (which ruled out MTJ because of f2j
produced code), and which had to be fully tested and maintained prior to
adoption (which rules out Colt which has no unit tests yet).

Ted and I weren't making "requests" for other people to do work, we were
wondering whether even offers to do some of the work would be accepted,
and for many of the questions/suggestions we had, it seems the desires
and requirements of the Mahout community were incompatible with those
of commons-math.

  -jake


>  > I think the only change that was proposed and not done because of lack
> > of consensus was the inclusion of MTJ (and I don't consider the
> > discussion closed on that topic either, so it may still happen some
> > day). All the other changes that are desired are simply lacking someone
> > to do the work. There were proposals to extend the linear algebra API,
> > proposals to add more support for sparse matrices, proposals to get
> > partial decomposition ... But sparse contributions (pun intended).
> >
> > I try to do what I can, but as you have probably seen have been rather
> > silent since 2.0 release. For my part, I really, really need help. I
> > would like to fix the problems in the eigen decomposition and SVD but
> > need a good kick to get on it, and having only requests and no help is
> > not really motivating.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> >>
> >> If that problem were solved, then it would be great to depend on commons
> >> math.  If that problem isn't solved, then there is no way to depend on
> >> commons math.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> We can't possibly have a dependency on Mahout in the long term. Either
> >>> we all go shares on code in some other piece of commons, or we end up
> >>> with two forks, which would be sad.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:33 AM, James Carman <
> james@carmanconsulting.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I wouldn't like to see a dependency on mahout code in a "commons"
> >>>> library.  That seems kind of backwards.  If Mahout wants to offload
> >>>> this stuff, we can move it into a library in commons (which is
> >>>> typically how stuff used to happen in Jakarta).
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Benson Margulies <
> bimargulies@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> Mahout now has a fork of a portion of the 'category A' portion of
the
> >>>>> CERN colt library forked. The Mahout fork is, of course, in the
> Mahout
> >>>>> tree under a Mahout Java package and Maven triple.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I want to use the collections classes from Mahout as the core to
a
> new
> >>>>> set of commons-primitives classes that do the useful things that
GNU
> >>>>> Trove does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The classes I want to start from depend on the classes that are
in
> the
> >>>>> Mahout fork.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a temporary expedient, I can depend on their there. However,
I
> >>>>> submit that it would be more better if the mathematical code were
in
> >>>>> commons-math. Was this option explored?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message