On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jörg Schaible
<joerg.schai...@gmx.de>
wrote:
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)
Are these Java packages (packages cannot have - in the name) or Maven
modules?
Eric referred to "Commons Math" layout:
base -> (top-level) package o.a.c.m
exception -> package o.a.c.m.exception
util -> package o.a.c.m.util
>
> 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.
+1, "utils" is never a good name. It feels like I could not think of
a good
name. Also, it encourages the class/package/module to become a
disorganized
kitchen sink of piled up dishes ;-)
What about discussing actual contents (scope) rather than names?
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.
It's not clear to me what we are really talking about here in the big
picture.
There we can agree.
I really do not think it is a good idea to end up with a bunch of
math
components in Commons. We have Commons Math, that component can have
different modules if it wants to slice and dice itself.
Oh, no, that ain't so.
Please look at the archives.
We could "shelve" math4 and have a math5 with all of the modules
being
discussed here and there.
What's about "5"?
I'd prefer "14", for no particular reason. :-)
Gilles
Gary
Cheers,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
