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] 2.2 compatibility issues
Date Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:15 GMT
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The clirr report run from the current MATH_2_X branch is, as expected,
>> problematic.  To get 2.2. out, we need to agree on what breaks we are going
>> to allow and what we are going to fix.   Here is a first cut and proposal
>> for some immediate fixes that I would appreciate feedback on.
>>
>> 0)  The improvements to the distributions classes to add characteristic
>> support and positive mass domains have added some new methods to interfaces
>> and new abstract methods to abstract classes.  I apologize for not spotting
>> this in initial patch reviews or being clear in discussion of the
>> features.   I think we can keep the functionality without introducing the
>> compatibility breaks by removing the added methods from interfaces /
>> abstract classes.  The only painful part is the nice solution for caching
>> numerical characteristics that will have to be repeated in the
>> implementation classes that need it.  I would like to proceed with these
>> changes in the 2.2 branch if others are OK with it.
>
> Fixed
>>
>> 1) Removed superclasses in the exception hierarchy.  I am OK leaving these
>> as is.
>
> I am now starting to wonder if we should fix this.  Problem is user
> code that may be catching the superclass exceptions (which is why
> clirr is complaining).
>

Sorry to flip/flop on this, but I now think we really need to fix this
(i,e., revert the incompatible changes). I have started doing the
work, most of which is replacing the new, unchecked MathUserException
with the deprecated checked FunctionEvaluationException.   I don't
think we *need* to force users to do refactor or surprise them with
unchecked exceptions in the upgrade to 2.2 and I am willing to do the
work to fix this.   If I hear no objections, I will commit the changes
when I have finished (next day or two).  We can add some info to the
release notes warning users of upcoming incompatible changes in 3.0.

Phil

>>
>> I don't know what, if anything, to do about the following:
>>
>> 2) Changed return type of interpolate in BicubicSpline.
>
> Fixed
>>
>> 3) Incompatible changes in the ode package.
>
> I agree that unfortunately this is hopeless.
>
>>
>> 4) Incompatible changes in the optimization package.
>
> Fixing...
>
> Phil
>

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


Mime
View raw message