commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Date Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:15:20 GMT
On 1/25/16 7:01 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:47:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 1/25/16 12:40 AM, Ole Ersoy wrote:
>>> Umbrella-ish is good.  Linear algebra, genetic algorithms, neural
>>> networks, clustering, monte carlo, simplex...These need an
>>> umbrella.  Some of the other Apache projects that do math may be
>>> interested in moving that piece under the Apache Math umbrella.
>> The ASF does not look favorably on "umbrella" projects.  This is
>> because in these projects, the individual volunteers making up the
>> PMC inevitably lose sight of the full project.  The governance model
>> that we have at Apache has no layers in it beneath the PMC.  That
>> means PMCs need to be focused.  "All things X" PMCs don't work.  The
>> canonical example of that was Jakarta, which started as "all things
>> Java" and was eventually split up.  We should definitely not try to
>> be "all things math" at the ASF.  A better focus would be a nice set
>> math components in Java that other math-related projects inside and
>> outside the ASF can use.  Kind of like, um, Commons Math as its own
>> TLP :)
> The problem is that Commons Math is "all things math-related that the
> PMC agreed to put in".  It is an umbrella in the sense you
> describe here
> (even if obviously cannot preclude other project to implement math
> routines).
> We have seen that a CM-like project has advantages and drawbacks, for
> developers and users.
> It makes sense to dig further into Ole's proposal towards
> modularization
> because, if it is as you say above, then different modules may
> have to
> become different projects!
> If they don't have to, then I don't understand your argument.
> Or it is a fight on the use of the word "umbrella"?

The ASF principle is simple:  the PMC has to provide active
oversight of the project.  That means that you can't have a single
project effectively split into several smaller ones with individual
PMC members providing oversight to parts, but not the whole.  When
that starts to happen, you need to break the project apart.  Just
distributing separate jars does not force that to happen. 

> Gilles
>> Phil
>>> Personally I like to see each in a separate repository dedicated
>>> to the subject, along with the corresponding documentation, etc 
>>> So:
>>> apache-math (Central repository describing the project as a whole
>>> with the documentation that cuts across modules)
>>> apache-math-linear-real
>>> apache-math-linear-field
>>> apache-math-optimization-genetic
>>> apache-math-optimization-simplex
>>> etc.
>>> And hopefully:
>>> apache-math-optimization-integer
>>> apache-math-optimization-mixed
>>> And more..
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ole
>>> On 01/24/2016 04:41 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Gilles
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> Just plain and simple "Apache Math" maybe?
>>>>> Or is it taken already?
>>>> It's not taken; but I thought it was too broad-sounding and in
>>>> fact umbrella-ish.  There are other ASF projects that do
>>>> math-relates things.  I think adding "components" makes it look
>>>> more like a library of base components that other math-related
>>>> projects can use.
>>>> Phil
>>>>> Gilles
>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:46:17 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/24/16 2:16 PM, James Carman wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess it depends on the scope of what the new TLP is going
>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>> This is slightly jumping the gun, as we do have the
>>>>>> opportunity in
>>>>>> forming the new TLP to revisit the initial goals of [math];
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> suspect that initially at least we will mostly continue to be a
>>>>>> general-purpose Java math library, trying to provide IP-clean,
>>>>>> easily integrated, standard algorithm-based solutions to common
>>>>>> math
>>>>>> programming problems.  We have grown to the point where we will
>>>>>> almost certainly break the distribution up into separate
>>>>>> "components."  No umbrella, but likely multiple release
>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>> Similar in some ways to what happened with [http], which is
>>>>>> why I
>>>>>> suggested the same approach to naming.
>>>>>> Regarding picking a mathematician for the name, I don't much
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> that idea as whoever you choose, you end up loading some math
>>>>>> area
>>>>>> and / or cultural bias into the name.
>>>>>> Phil
>>>>>>> Umbrella projects aren't that popular these days, from what I
>>>>>>> understand.
>>>>>>> Maybe an homage to a famous mathematician? Apache Newton?
>>>>>>> Apache Euler?
>>>>>>> Apache Euclid?
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:08 PM Phil Steitz
>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We need to agree on a name.  My own preference is for a
>>>>>>>> boring,
>>>>>>>> descriptive name, but I am manifestly not a marketing guy,
>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>> be offended if others want to be more creative.
>>>>>>>> My suggestion is
>>>>>>>> MathComponents
>>>>>>>> Hearkens back to HttpComponents, which has worked pretty
>>>>>>>> Phil
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message