commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [complex][math-util] dependencies
Date Tue, 29 Nov 2016 21:31:49 GMT
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jörg Schaible 
> <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Eric Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> > I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here 
>> rather
>> than
>> > in the commons-complex JIRA.
>> >
>> > The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
>> >
>> > -- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
>> > -- commons-math exceptions
>
>> -- commons-math util (numerous classes)
>>
>
> Are these Java packages (packages cannot have - in the name) or Maven
> modules?

Eric referred to "Commons Math" layout:
  base -> (top-level) package o.a.c.m
  exception -> package o.a.c.m.exception
  util -> package o.a.c.m.util


>> >
>> > Otherwise it is self-contained. (Some tests within the  
>> QuaternionTest
>> > class use a large chain of dependencies from the geometry package, 
>> so I
>> > think it is best to simply remove the geometry-dependent tests 
>> until
>> > someone arrives to maintain that library.)
>> >
>> > This suggests to me that, if we were to continue with some kind of
>> > math-utils base class, it should consist of these three current 
>> packages:
>> > the base classes, util and exception. It might in fact make sense 
>> to spin
>> > out this base library first (which I am happy to oversee) then 
>> return to
>> > finishing out the independent complex library with only 
>> commons-math-util
>> > as dependency.
>>
>> It seems you try to create what commons-math should have been ;-)
>>
>> However, I'd avoid the term "utils" in a components name, it sounds
>> immediately again as dumping ground for all kind of stuff.
>
>
> +1, "utils" is never a good name. It feels like I could not think of 
> a good
> name. Also, it encourages the class/package/module to become a 
> disorganized
> kitchen sink of piled up dishes ;-)

What about discussing actual contents (scope) rather than names?

>> What about
>> commons-math-base?
>>
>> > Would this also be compatible with the current trajectory
>> > of RNG?
>>
>> It's IMHO independent. It boils down more to the point if we agree 
>> that
>> there will be never a release of commons-math4.
>>
>
> It's not clear to me what we are really talking about here in the big
> picture.

There we can agree.

>
> I really do not think it is a good idea to end up with a bunch of 
> math
> components in Commons. We have Commons Math, that component can have
> different modules if it wants to slice and dice itself.

Oh, no, that ain't so.
Please look at the archives.

> We could "shelve" math4 and have a math5 with all of the modules 
> being
> discussed here and there.

What's about "5"?
I'd prefer "14", for no particular reason. :-)

Gilles

>
> Gary
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jörg
>>
>>


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


Mime
View raw message