mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Owen <>
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Commons Math 2.0 Released
Date Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:44:52 GMT
I looked at the APIs just now and thought they were pretty good --
yes, RealVector seems a little overdone perhaps. It does seem more
complete and planned than the serviceable but ad-hoc APIs developed in
Mahout to date. But implementations are provided no? It does make the
job of writing a Writable wrapper implementation a little harder but
hey in my IDE it's still one click to create the skeleton.

Is the idea of 'labels' a key feature it would be missing? again a
wrapper strategy can probably take care of that, not clear how hard it

My guess is it can be made to do whatever we need, since we don't need
anything terribly fancy. The performance characteristics could be an
issue. I would suspect that if there are such issues we can either
work to contribute improvements, or produce additional implementations
with desired characteristics.

It'd sure be nice to not have our own library. That said it's a fair
bit of work to port, just to get back to where we are. I wouldn't mind
looking at that for 0.3 (since I need to get my hands dirty with
matrices for parallelizable recommendations, and had been waiting a
bit to settle the question of what the implementation we use would

What are people's inclinations on this?


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Jake Mannix <> wrote:
> So what's the status on integration of commons-math-2.0 in Mahout?
> Do we need that stuff?  Some of their apis are pretty ugly (look at the
> number
> of methods you need to implement to qualify to be a "RealVector"), but
> piggybacking on some of their functionality would be pretty useful
> (especially
> stats/regression/distributions as well as the small matrix decomposition
> stuff).

View raw message