commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:42:17 GMT
Hi Benedikt.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:48:45 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Gilles,
>> Am 15.08.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Gilles 
>> <>:
>> Hello.
>> [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.]
>> How about creating "Commons Geometry"?
>> The rationale is comprised of the usual suspects:
>> * Smaller and more focused component, hence:
>>   - Consistent development and maintenance.
>>   - Consistent release schedule, not encumbered by
>>     changes (and endless discussions) in _totally_
>>     unrelated code.
>>   - Potential for attracting contributors not
>>     interested in maintaining the (growing) backlog
>>     of CM.
>> * Self-contained: 96.3% of the "o.a.c.math4.geometry"
>>   package have no dependency except:
>>   - 4 classes now in "Commons Numbers".
>>   - 2 methods and 1 constant in "MathUtils".
>>   - CM exceptions. [Creating alternatives for those
>>     will probably be the most time-consuming part of
>>     the porting work.]
>> Moreover, none of the code in the "o.a.c.math4.geometry"
>> package is used by another package of CM.
>> A new component would give the "geometry" codes a much
>> better chance of being (confidently[1]) released, since
>> CM is "stuck" for the foreseeable future.[2]
>> WDYT?
> I want to see the initial release of Commons Numbers before breaking
> more components out of CM.

I'm among those who most want to see that release rather sooner
than later.  [IIRC, I posted regularly to inquire about the status
of the pending issues.  Is there more *I* can do at this point?]

I've no problem with serializing the "CM ripping[1]" project.

However, I wish to know what people think of the purely technical,
code-oriented, arguments which I've put forward above.

My suggestion would be to have a "beta" release of the new component
in order to let a community of expert/interested users voice its
opinion on the expected API.  [I think there is a lot of good and
broadly useful code in the "geometry" package (otherwise I wouldn't
ask for a new component) but I also suspect that the API can be


[1] For its own good, and ours. ;-)

> Regards,
> Benedikt
>> Gilles
>> [1] There seems to be only one issue reported in JIRA
>>    that pertains to "geometry".
>> [2] 54 issues yet to be fixed before the 4.0 release;
>>    which, at the current rate, would lead to after 2025
>>    (a very rough guess, I admit).

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

View raw message