Hi,
I can understand Dimitri's frustration, it seems the optimization
framework gets worse with every iteration. However, we should probably
look forward and think about how to design it properly instead.
+1 - though we have the constraint that we need to maintain backward
compatibility until 4.0. If we decide it is too far gone, we have
to drop that and either cut 4.0 "quickly" (will probably be hard for
us, given all of the other refactoring we want to get done for 4.0)
or make an exception.
I have no frustration wrt CM. I only think that rather than wanting
CM to handle everything in every possible way, its developers should
limit the implementation (e.g. rely upon user's pre-multiplication
rather than offering a matrix of weights approach) and make sure those
are intensively tested and bug free.
4) Testing should be done on larger problems.
+1 - I think it would be great to add some test classes not executed
on each build to test large problems. Do you have some we can use?
In the framework of a space mission, I do test some aspects of the linear
algebra package (QR, SVD) and optimization (LevenbergMarquardt) on millions
of problems.
Dim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Pourbaix * Don't worry, be happy
Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * and CARPE DIEM.
CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO *
Universite Libre de Bruxelles * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
Boulevard du Triomphe * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
B-1050 Bruxelles * NAC: HBZSC RG2Z6
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix * mailto:pourb...@astro.ulb.ac.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
