commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: [MATH] what a commons-TLP split could look like
Date Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:50:23 GMT
Hi Eric and Gilles,

Gilles wrote:


> Here is a list of usage count of CM packages (Github search[1]):
>   o.a.c.math3.analysis      2
>   o.a.c.math3.distribution 39
>   o.a.c.math3.exception     3
>   o.a.c.math3.linear       10
>   o.a.c.math3.primes        1
>   o.a.c.math3.random       25
>   o.a.c.math3.special       2
>   o.a.c.math3.stat         29
>   o.a.c.math3.util         25
> [Does someone know how to make this list more representative by adding
> data from other sources?]

Maybe with


>> o.a.c.m. exception -> commons
> -1
> Each component use its own exception set.
> No hope to get a consensus on this subject. :-}
> It would not be a good idea for a "core" package to have an exception
> library as its sole dependency.
> Also, for core packages, the exception machinery of CM is not
> necessary.
> [Personally, I don't think that it is ever necessary.]

You could use the generalized exceptions in lang that support also a value 
map. If a dependency to lang is possible.


>> o.a.c.m. optim and optimization -> combine into one TLP component
> Just TLP.
> [It's already a problem to get _one_ TLP. :-}]

I am quite sure Eric meant it as a single component in one Math TLP.


If we go down this road, it is still not clear how this transition can be 
done smoothly for the existing users of CM. Once Math is an own TLP, the old 
CM is finally dormant in commons.

IMHO the best way would be a release of 3.x with all packages deprecated 
that have been extracted into own Commons components. Thoughts?

- Jörg

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

View raw message