Would it be better to make it Math 2.0? With a language level change like that, it should probably be a new major version. You should also consider putting the stuff in org.apache.commons.math2 packages to avoid "jar hell" issues.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Luc Maisonobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mauro Talevi recently proposed a new package for general linear regression >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-203). This patch needs Java 5, >> mainly for annotations. >> >> Mauro suggested to take the opportunity of the next [math] major version to >> switch to Java 5. A major version seems appropriate for such a change, but >> do we want to do it now ? >> >> My personal opinion is that sticking to Java 1.3 is really obsolete and >> difficult. When I upgraded my Linux box recently, I had to search old >> backups to reinstall a JDK manually. Dropping this could simplify some codes >> (exceptions for example) and fix some errors (there is a known issue with >> unit tests since Java 1.3 does not compute trigonometric functions as it >> should). >> >> If we decide to change minimal Java version, I would choose to target 1.5. >> It is widely adopted and deployed now and has many features which would be >> useful for a mathematical library: >> - new Math functions (log10, cbrt, ulp, signum, cosh, sinh, tanh, hypot, >> expm1, log1p) >> - autoboxing >> - MathContext, RoundingMode >> In addition, there are the many features that are interesting for any type >> of Java development (enums, generics, annotations). >> >> Java 6 brings even more Math functions (copysign, getExponent, nextAfter, >> nextUp, scalb), some of which we needed to add ourselves in MathUtils. >> However, I'm not sure it is as widely deployed than Java5. >> >> Perhaps Java 7 would bring even more functions (asinh, acosh and atanh are >> still missing ...) >> >> What do you think ? > > I agree that moving to 1.5 minimum in 2.0 would be OK. The only thing > that bugs me is that there is a fair amount of (mostly Mantissa) stuff > queued up for 2.0 that does not require 1.5. I wonder how many users > of the new stuff will still be on < 1.5. Probably not many, so I am > +1 for requiring 1.5+ for 2.0. > > Phil > >> >> Luc >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
