Hi, now that CM3 is on its way thanks to Gilles' dedication in the last weeks, I would like to exhume this long-standing topic. In a few words, my understanding is that the interfaces for matrices and vectors are cluttered with many methods which could be externalized, applying the "Visitor" pattern (or an even more simple variant of map(f)). This is problably a very simplistic description of a much wider topic (I remember Ted writing about views of a specific vector), but this is only a start ;-)
Considering the number of people who already have posted on this (and related) issue(s) in the past, I have no doubt that this is going to be an interesting and constructive issue. However, browsing this morning the ML, I could measure how scattered the information was... and it each time ended by a decision to postpone. While the ML is a good place to exchange ideas, I think that we would really need a more permanent place to centralize the results of these discussions, for such a wide topic.There are two options for this 1. the Wiki 2. JIRA The way I see it, this summary should really be that: a statement of the decisions which were made elsewhere (e.g. on the ML). So, in my view, it should be clean, exhaustive but concise. I would therefore suggest the (not-too-well-loved) wiki as a place for holding this report. Indeed, in my view, a general JIRA ticket would encourage people to add more comments, which would again clutter the whole thing. From this Wiki master report, JIRA sub-tasks could be identified and created. I would be quite willing to try and summarize what would freely be discussed on the mailing-list, so that it would imply but little extra work for other people who take part to the discussions (appart from checking that I do not write anything silly on the Wiki... which is very likely to occur). Refactoring of this package is an important issue, which has been raised several times in the past, and it gets more and more complicated to dig out old threads, with information not really well organized (some of us are "green" committers, who do not have the full history of the project in mind!). In short, we need to discuss, but we also need to keep a structured record of these discussions, and I'm quite happy to be the secretary for these discussions if none other want to take on this task. Do you think that this is likely to work? Do you think this would be like "using a jack-hammer to drive a nail" (poor translation of a french say, I hope you get the picture...)? Do you have alternative proposals? As a starter, please find below a few pointers to threads and tickets related to the issue raised in the present message (please fill free to add the many omissions I have undoubtedly made). Best regards, Sébastien http://markmail.org/thread/ao44z3ig2uitzgh3 http://markmail.org/thread/ztcwntgaiwam4ytu http://markmail.org/thread/vkwe5x2jtozcjkge http://markmail.org/thread/uocuuxy2i2qpyt33 http://markmail.org/thread/j4xjdtchpw33xpgr MATH-656 MATH-643 MATH-628 MATH-626 MATH-608 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
