commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <>
Subject Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:09:50 GMT
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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Luc Maisonobe <> 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 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 <>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 <>
>>> 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 <>
>>> 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:
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message