----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Questions about the linear package
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote:
we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if
someone did really create a class that implements RealVector, he would
simply have to say it extends AbstractRealVector instead. So there is a
clear gain to accept this kind of incompatible change as soon as 2.1.
What do other people think about this ?
I think that what you say is exactly right.
I'm +1 on this (including being willing to help). Like Luc, I don't believe
that there are very many people implementing custom versons of these
interfaces.
Perhaps we should also deprecate the gazillion maptXxx and ebeXxx
methods,
I'm not sure.
I am on the fence on this. I tend to prefer general methods such as Jake
describes, but I have also seen people be confused by them. I do think
that
a narrower interface is good along with an AbstractRealVector
implementation
based on the underlying general call. The general call should also
recognized some special cases and optimize them.
I'm +1 to deprecate these methods in 2.x, but -1* on removing them from the
interface before 3.0. There is a high expectation for commons projects that
you can upgrade to minor versions by just dropping in the new jar file.
*) This is a vote, not a veto (especially since I can't veto anyway).
What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of
these mapXXX methods?
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
