On Dec 28, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Dimitri Pourbaix <pourb...@astro.ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> 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. Maybe it is better if the OO design provided basic optimization functionality with a set of wrappers that would allow the user to quickly implement a weighted least-squares approach, instead of complicating the interface to all the solvers every time we want to add another feature. The weights are not part of the optimization algorithm. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
