On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 15:06:35 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
If math is broken up into smaller artifacts it will make it easier for users to upgrade, even if it it breaks compatibility, as well as speed up the release frequency. So for example: commons-math-optimization (Or even more granular commons-math-optimization-lp, commons-math-optimization-ga, commons-math-optimization-nlp, etc) commons-math-simulation commons-math-statistics commons-math-ai (Neural Networks, ...) etc.
I also believe that modularity is a worthy goal. A first step would be to collect some statistics on inter-package dependencies. There will certainly be a "commons-math-core" containing packages like "o.a.c.m.util" and "o.a.c.m.exception". [At some point, releasing separate JARs could also provide us with indirect feedback on which parts of CM are actually used.] Best regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
