If this was a project to create specs AND provide reference implementations I think it would make sense. I don’t see how a project that just creates specs fits with Commons personally.
Ralph > On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A sort of commons-algorithms type library? That kind of strikes me as what > Commons is in the first place. I could see it being broken down into > components, though. For example, commons-graph < > https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/> (seems inactive) for > graph algorithms, commons-tree for trees, heaps, and other similar ADTs and > algorithms. Some ADTs already belong in commons-collections. Some > algorithms may already be in commons-math, and there's efforts toward > splitting that up into individual components (e.g., rng, numbers, > statistics), so it doesn't make sense to group them in there IMO. > > On 13 February 2018 at 05:23, Bruno P. Kinoshita < > brunodepau...@yahoo.com.br.invalid> wrote: > >> Hi Claude, >> >> Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't recall >> if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs? >> >> But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are created, >> I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first? >> >> >> Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the >> concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea? >> Cheers >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> >> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM >> Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project >> >> >> >> The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and >> potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be >> pseudo code. >> >> I think all this requires is: >> >> 1. jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they >> are closed >> 2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under >> discussion. Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default. >> 3. A repository for code snippets. Though again perhaps Jira would be >> sufficient. >> 4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like. >> >> Claude >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you >>> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it >>> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure >>> would you require? >>> >>> Gruss >>> Bernd >>> -- >>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Claude Warren <cla...@xenei.com> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM >>> To: Commons Developers List >>> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project >>> >>> Disclaimer: I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so >>> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under >>> commons. The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things >> under >>> discussion. >>> >>> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and >>> documentation of algorithms. As anyone who has tried can attest, writing >>> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible. This >>> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out >>> code examples in various languages for implementation. >>> >>> For example: Bloom Filters. When creating a bloom filter you take the >>> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on. >> But >>> the modulus of a negative number is negative. So is it proper to take >> the >>> absolute value (abs) of the modulus or the digest or are you required to >>> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer? All of these >>> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability. >>> >>> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring >>> algorithms of this sort. Is there any interest here in starting such >>> discussions? If so how does one go about it? >>> >>> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be >>> conducted against. So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter >>> implementation. The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved. >>> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the >>> discussion provided. >>> >>> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that >>> documentation would include code. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> Claude >>> >>> >>> -- >>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web >>> <http://like-like.xenei.com> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web >> <http://like-like.xenei.com> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
