On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 00:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
The issues of the j.u.Random implementation are only for the default
implementation,
Not true, unfortunately (more than one example in the document).
if you provide a different algorithm (from
Securearandom or any distribution from RNG) you can avoid it (if
needed)
As you know, "java.util.Random" is not an interface. This fact alone
should make people suspicious of using it as such.
Moreover since Java 1.0, there has been some adjustments in what
is considered good programming practice.
I'd be interested to see another library based on a similar design
as JDK's "Random": this leads back to a question which I asked in
this forum more than one year ago...
Regards,
Gilles
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 10:50 PM +0100, "Gilles"
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:22:37 +0000 (UTC), Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
You suggested to use UniformRandomProvider in TEXT-36.
I suggest to use j.u.Random because it is a common (interface like)
I know that already.
To advance the discussion, could you please comment on the issues
in the document I referred to below?
type which is easy to provide any alternative random provider you
would want (on protected method to implement)
See document.
- just like InputStream
is a commonly subtyped base class.
Comparison is not reason.
Perhaps "InputStream" is not as flawed as "Random"...
In a lot of situations people will be happy with j.u.R
I bet that in the majority of those cases, they are happy
because they don't know better (a variation on "security
through obscurity"). I was among them a year ago.
Anyways my proposal takes care of people who'd insist on getting
randomness from "Random"; they'll choose the corresponding bridge,
with the knowledge that an LCG generator fails ~70 tests of
uniformity whereas state-of-the-art RNG algorithms fail 1 or 2
(see reports in RNG's user guide).
or they can
use SecureRandom (which also implements j.u.R),
Yet another flaw of old JDK's design decisions...
Anyways, the bridge allows this equally well.
but if the need more
control over the RNG or the distribution they can easily adjust. No
multi-module or optional dependency is needed for that.
And the RNG->j.u.Random bridge can be provided in RNG for other uses
as well.
I already wrote that such a bridge exists (see Javadoc of RNG's
"commons-rng-simple" module).
It is a sub-par solution.
There is no reason to stick to java.util.Random.
Where is the problem with a modular component?
This will be transparent to the average user (who, by the way,
wouldn't care less if there were a mandatory dependency on
Commons RNG).
For those who want more control of dependencies, it also won't
be a problem to state explicitly which bridge they want to use.
Gilles
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:11 PM +0100, "Gilles"
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 17:30:17 +0000 (UTC), Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Sorry I meant *uniform* distribution
Gruss
Bernd
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:58 PM +0100, "Bernd Eckenfels"
wrote:
Hello,
I am somewhat unclear, why would you require a random distribution
(Interface).
Who said?
Is there no better more generic Interface in RNG-API?
Have you had a look at
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-rng/commons-rng-client-api/index.html
?
Having said that I still think j.u.Random is fine
Have you read
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-rng/userguide/why_not_java_random.html
?
Why use a poor algorithm when using a better one is as easy?
- but if not maybe a
byte or int Provider would be better than a specific interface for
the
random source.
I don't follow.
How do you define this "Provider" if not with an interface?
Gilles
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 5:04 PM +0100, "Jörg Schaible"
wrote:
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:40:20 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
Hello all,
Personally, I would like to resolve the TEXT-36 and TEXT-42 Jira
tickets before proceeding with the release, but I wanted to check
to
see if anyone else has any opinions on what work needs to be
completed
before the release.
Regarding TEXT-36: 'Dependency on “Commons RNG” ‘, I’m relatively
indifferent here, I just want some other’s to weigh in as to
their
thoughts before deciding to leave in the dependency
I don't follow.
Currently, there is no dependency towards RNG.
Personally, I'm in favour of an API that "advertizes" and
recommends
usage of its RNG sibling component. [As [TEXT] is, admittedly, a
high-level component (and it already depends on [LANG]).]
However a consensual proposal would be to define a custom
interface
(see JIRA discussion), and define the API around it.
[TEXT] should be made "multimodule"; it could then provide bridges
(cf. JIRA comment) in separate modules:
* commons-text-core (algos)
* commons-text-commons-rng-bridge (from
"o.a.c.rng.UniformRandomProvider")
* commons-text-jdk-bridge (from "java.util.Random")
The dependency towards Commons RNG thus becomes optional.
But application developers have to explicitly choose an
implementation (which is good).
You can achieve something similar by declaring commons-rng as
optional. If
you introduce an API for the random functionality and one
implementation is
based on commons-rng, any user will have to declare this dependency
on his
own if he like to use this implementation.
We have a similar setup in vfs where you have to declare jsch as
dependency
on your own if you want SSH support for the protocol in use.
and making more
progress on the best pattern after the 1.0 release.
API decisions must be made before a major release.
The best pattern is the above (IMHO, and as per Jochen's note):
higher flexibility and higher correctness.
Cheers,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
