commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [Math] Issues 764 and 823
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:06:36 GMT
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 04:39:41PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 7/16/12 2:46 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Referring to the discussion here:
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-764
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-823

Those issues have been resolved in revision 1363604.

> >
> > Do we agree:
> >  * To add new constructors to the distribution classes (in package
> >    "o.a.c.m.distribution") that take a "RandomGenerator" (in package
> >    "o.a.c.m.random") as an argument?
> +1

Done.

> >  * That this argument (reference) will be stored in the distribution
> >    object but can be manipulated from outside (e.g. "setSeed") so that
> >    the class is not strictly immutable? [Immutability is impossible to
> >    enforce since there is no way to copy such an object.]
> +1

Done.

> >  * That the distribution classes do not need a setter for the RNG, nor a
> >    a method to re-seed the RNG? [I.e. if a user wants a new RNG, he must
> >    instantiate a new distribution object.]
> +1 for no setter, -1 for no reseed.

The "reseedRandomGenerator" method already existed, so this decision must
anyways be postponed to 4.0.

> >  * That the ad-hoc code of the sampling methods currently in
> >    "RandomDataImpl" (in package "o.a.c.m.random") will be moved over to the
> >    "sample" method in the correpsonding distribution class?
> +1

Done.

> >  * That "RandomData" and "RandomDataImpl" will be refactored so that methods
> >    that duplicate functionality transferred to the distribution will
> >    deprecated in 3.1 and removed in 4.0?
> -0  If we keep these classes, which I am inclined to support
> (combined into one), they should delegate implementations to
> distributions (exactly the reverse of how it is now).

Not done yet. A ticket should be opened.

For 3.1:
 * either we leave the situation as is (i.e. duplicate code in
   "RandomDataImpl" and in the distribution classes),
 * or we delegate to the distribution's "sample" method (in the
   obvious but possibly inefficient way).

Other ideas?

> >  * That the interface "RandomData" and its unique implementation
> >   ("RandomDataImpl") will be merged in 4.0?
> +1

A new JIRA ticket should be opened.


Regards,
Gilles

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


Mime
View raw message