Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Ted Dunning
Not really. It can check first. That doesn't take long. On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Gilles Sadowski < gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > Alternatively we could call this utility function from within the > constructor (and in the "evaluate" method), in all cases, in order to make > sure

Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Gilles Sadowski
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 01:46:07PM -0700, Ted Dunning wrote: > This seems like asking for trouble. > > Usually interpolation requires O(n) work since lots of points are going to > be interpolated. Adding the O(n) task of checking for sorted data > to the constructor seems like a better idea than

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-31 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/31/10 9:47 PM, Mark Thomas wrote: On 31/10/2010 21:36, Phil Steitz wrote: A radical idea that I have been considering is to propose that we dispense with keyed pools altogether. The DBCP need can be met without them (see jdbc-pool) Can it? I know there are some things that DBCP can do t

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-31 Thread Mark Thomas
On 31/10/2010 21:36, Phil Steitz wrote: > A radical idea that I have been considering is to propose that we > dispense with keyed pools altogether. The DBCP need can be met without > them (see jdbc-pool) Can it? I know there are some things that DBCP can do that jdbc-pool can't such as https://is

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-31 Thread Phil Steitz
On 10/31/10 12:38 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: On Oct 31, 2010, at 8:55, "Phil Steitz" wrote: On 10/30/10 10:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 06:35 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [pool] P

Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Ted Dunning
This seems like asking for trouble. Usually interpolation requires O(n) work since lots of points are going to be interpolated. Adding the O(n) task of checking for sorted data to the constructor seems like a better idea than adding a flag. The O(n log n) cost of sorting would only be triggered

Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 31/10/2010 17:59, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:57:33PM +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: >> Le 31/10/2010 15:08, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : >>> Hi. >>> >>> [Continued from the previous message.] >>> >>> Accepting that the interpolation abscissae are not sorted in strictly >>>

Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Gilles Sadowski
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 03:57:33PM +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 31/10/2010 15:08, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > > Hi. > > > > [Continued from the previous message.] > > > > Accepting that the interpolation abscissae are not sorted in strictly > > increasing order make it necessary to check (at

Re: [Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Le 31/10/2010 15:08, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > Hi. > > [Continued from the previous message.] > > Accepting that the interpolation abscissae are not sorted in strictly > increasing order make it necessary to check (at every call to the "value" > method) that no 2 interpolating points are the sa

[Math] PolynomialFunctionLagrangeForm (continued)

2010-10-31 Thread Gilles Sadowski
Hi. [Continued from the previous message.] Accepting that the interpolation abscissae are not sorted in strictly increasing order make it necessary to check (at every call to the "value" method) that no 2 interpolating points are the same. The code would be cleaner is we assume (as a pre-conditio

Re: [pool] Pool config vs. factory hierarchies.

2010-10-31 Thread Mark Thomas
On 31/10/2010 03:55, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 10/30/10 10:55 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> It would be possible for example, that the GOP subclass GKOP as a >> degenerate simple case where the GOP has one pool in a GKOP. That >> seems radical, but it would eliminate a lot of apparent code >> duplicatio

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-proxy-test (in module apache-commons) failed

2010-10-31 Thread Gump
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jci-core (in module apache-commons) failed

2010-10-31 Thread Stefan Bodewig
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jci-core has an issue affecting its community integration. This is

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-scxml-test (in module apache-commons) failed

2010-10-31 Thread Gump
To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration. This