Hi Eric, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than > in the commons-complex JIRA. > > The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages: > > -- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.) > -- commons-math exceptions > -- commons-math util (numerous classes) > > Otherwise it is self-contained. (Some tests within the QuaternionTest > class use a large chain of dependencies from the geometry package, so I > think it is best to simply remove the geometry-dependent tests until > someone arrives to maintain that library.) > > This suggests to me that, if we were to continue with some kind of > math-utils base class, it should consist of these three current packages: > the base classes, util and exception. It might in fact make sense to spin > out this base library first (which I am happy to oversee) then return to > finishing out the independent complex library with only commons-math-util > as dependency. It seems you try to create what commons-math should have been ;-) However, I'd avoid the term "utils" in a components name, it sounds immediately again as dumping ground for all kind of stuff. What about commons-math-base? > Would this also be compatible with the current trajectory > of RNG? It's IMHO independent. It boils down more to the point if we agree that there will be never a release of commons-math4. Cheers, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
