On 7/16/12 2:46 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > Hi. > > Referring to the discussion here: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-764 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-823 > > Do we agree: > * To add new constructors to the distribution classes (in package > "o.a.c.m.distribution") that take a "RandomGenerator" (in package > "o.a.c.m.random") as an argument? +1 > * That this argument (reference) will be stored in the distribution > object but can be manipulated from outside (e.g. "setSeed") so that > the class is not strictly immutable? [Immutability is impossible to > enforce since there is no way to copy such an object.] +1 > * That the distribution classes do not need a setter for the RNG, nor a > a method to re-seed the RNG? [I.e. if a user wants a new RNG, he must > instantiate a new distribution object.] +1 for no setter, -1 for no reseed. > * That the ad-hoc code of the sampling methods currently in > "RandomDataImpl" (in package "o.a.c.m.random") will be moved over to the > "sample" method in the correpsonding distribution class? +1 > * That "RandomData" and "RandomDataImpl" will be refactored so that methods > that duplicate functionality transferred to the distribution will > deprecated in 3.1 and removed in 4.0? -0 If we keep these classes, which I am inclined to support (combined into one), they should delegate implementations to distributions (exactly the reverse of how it is now). > * That the interface "RandomData" and its unique implementation > ("RandomDataImpl") will be merged in 4.0? +1
Phil > > > Regards, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
