On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Sam Halliday <sam.halli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> I am a maintainer of the matrix-toolkits-java
Which is an impressive piece of work, especially the transparent but
non-binding interface to the Atlas and Blas native packages. My compliments
to Bjørn-Ove and all who have followed up on his original work.
This note is in regard to the commons-math library. It is clear that our
> projects dovetail, especially when I look at "linear" in version 2.0 of the
> API. It would be good if we could either complement or consolidate efforts,
> rather than reproduce.
That sounds good to me.
As a start, I'd like to discourage the use of a solid implementation for
> SparseReal{Vector, Matrix}... please prefer an interface approach, allowing
> implementations based on the Templates project:-
Can you say more about what aspects of the Templates project you feel are
important? You mention one case of storage layout.
> I believe commons-math should move to a netlib-java backend (allowing the
> use of machine optimised BLAS/LAPACK).
This is an interesting suggestion. Obviously adopting MTJ wholesale would
accomplish that.
Can you say something about the licensing issues if we were to explore, for
discussion sake, MTJ being folded into commons-math? MTJ is LGPL while
commons has to stay Apache licensed. This licensing issue has been the
biggest sticking point in the past.
