On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The clirr report run from the current MATH_2_X branch is, as expected, >> problematic. To get 2.2. out, we need to agree on what breaks we are going >> to allow and what we are going to fix. Here is a first cut and proposal >> for some immediate fixes that I would appreciate feedback on. >> >> 0) The improvements to the distributions classes to add characteristic >> support and positive mass domains have added some new methods to interfaces >> and new abstract methods to abstract classes. I apologize for not spotting >> this in initial patch reviews or being clear in discussion of the >> features. I think we can keep the functionality without introducing the >> compatibility breaks by removing the added methods from interfaces / >> abstract classes. The only painful part is the nice solution for caching >> numerical characteristics that will have to be repeated in the >> implementation classes that need it. I would like to proceed with these >> changes in the 2.2 branch if others are OK with it. > > Fixed >> >> 1) Removed superclasses in the exception hierarchy. I am OK leaving these >> as is. > > I am now starting to wonder if we should fix this. Problem is user > code that may be catching the superclass exceptions (which is why > clirr is complaining). >
Sorry to flip/flop on this, but I now think we really need to fix this (i,e., revert the incompatible changes). I have started doing the work, most of which is replacing the new, unchecked MathUserException with the deprecated checked FunctionEvaluationException. I don't think we *need* to force users to do refactor or surprise them with unchecked exceptions in the upgrade to 2.2 and I am willing to do the work to fix this. If I hear no objections, I will commit the changes when I have finished (next day or two). We can add some info to the release notes warning users of upcoming incompatible changes in 3.0. Phil >> >> I don't know what, if anything, to do about the following: >> >> 2) Changed return type of interpolate in BicubicSpline. > > Fixed >> >> 3) Incompatible changes in the ode package. > > I agree that unfortunately this is hopeless. > >> >> 4) Incompatible changes in the optimization package. > > Fixing... > > Phil > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
