Re: svn commit: r889008 - in /commons/proper/math/trunk/src: main/java/org/apache/commons/math/linear/ site/xdoc/ test/java/org/apache/commons/math/linear/

Hey Bill, I'm glad you looked at this! You point out something which is really weird - as my comment in the JIRA ticket indicates, I believe I removed any allowing of nonzero default values, for exactly the reasons you brought up (in short, they're a total pain to deal with), and many more: "N

Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > CERN Colt is a library with a mixture of 'category A' material and > 'category B-or-worse' material. In other words, it is not an > attractive dependency for ASF code as a lump. > Yep, that's why when I made my original patch of Colt for

Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > > > > I have submitted patches for the following tickets: MATH-312 (and > acceptance > > of that patch blocks my patch for MATH-314), MATH-316 and MATH-317, none > > of which have appear to have had much progress on. All of my patches > come

Re: [math] getting changes included into commons-math (was Re: Home for the colt fork)

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > This is interesting. We have a raft of mathematically qualified > committers on Mahout, and this message asking for help on > commons-math, and a raft of code marooned at mahout that wants to be > in commons math. If I were one of those ma

Re: Colt vs. Primitives

It's in the module now called "matrix" - the name "colt" is tradmarked by CERN, so we're not using that name as such. -jake On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > I just checked this out and there is no colt in there. I got rev 888157. > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:04 PM,

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

we need to have containsNan and containsInfinite > methods on vectors and matrices so that it is easy to check. > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Jake Mannix wrote: > > > ... Yeah, in my own libraries, I tend to say that either don't force > checks > > ever and

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Jake Mannix a écrit : > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jake Mannix > wrote: > > > >>> Also, why the special case for > >>>> ArithmeticExcption here, for the zero norm case? Why not just let

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jake Mannix wrote: > > Also, why the special case for >> > ArithmeticExcption here, for the zero norm case? Why not just let >> > java just >> > try to divide, and if it divides by zero, well, it'll throw an >> >

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > > There are several cases. If you do: > > RealVector v = new ArrayRealVector(...); > > and later use v, a static analysis would be sufficient to know v is > really an ArrayRealVector instance. > Ok, I was familiar with this, yes, and in thi

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:41 AM, wrote: > > This is the reason why the boolean is there. > Yeah, I know, my point is that in the current method implementation, the boolean is not used properly - it's currently: return new ArrayRealVector(v) which forces a copy. return new ArrayRealVector(v, fals

Re: [math] Performance optimization in the vector classes

Hey all, In digging through ArrayRealVector and OpenMapRealVector, while trying to draw up patches for MATH-312 and MATH-314, I found a number of performance ( and other) issues: 1) in add(double[]), subtract(double[]), and mapXXX methods, the idiom is: double[] v = new double[data.length];

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bill Barker wrote: > > I'm +1 on this (including being willing to help). Like Luc, I don't > believe that there are very many people implementing custom versons of these > interfaces. > Ok great, I feel a consensus building here, so I'm going to write up a JIRA t

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of > these mapXXX methods? > I don't know about outside, but in my first test patch which removed these methods completely, the only ones which were used outside of unit

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, wrote: > > - "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > > You are both right. > I was mainly refering to removing methods as this affects not only > implementations but mainly user code. > Adding new methods to interfaces is an incompatible cha

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

e new methods... On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > I think that Luc was referring to non-backwards compatible changes. Adding > methods should not be in this category, but removing them would be. > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jake Mannix > wrote: > >

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Jake Mannix a écrit : > > Hi Luc, > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:01 AM, wrote: > > > >>> * also for RealVector - No iterator methods? So if the > >>> implementation is

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > When this topic was discussed previously, Sam asked to someone called > Bjorn-Ove and the reply was positive, see > . > > Ok, so reading this thread left it at the following: 1) the maintainer

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Hi Luc, On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:01 AM, wrote: > > > > * also for RealVector - No iterator methods? So if the > > implementation is > > sparse, there's no way to just iterate over the non-zero entries? > > What's > > worse, you can't even subclass OpenMapVector and expose the iterator > > o

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:32 AM, wrote: > > - "Ted Dunning" a écrit : > > > I would like to add my voice as a Mahout committer. We would LOVE to > > use > > commons math in Mahout, but these and a few other issues prevent it. > > > > There was word some time ago about integrating a high per

[math] Questions about the linear package

lp (I'm tracking my attempts at this over on my GitHub clone of trunk: http://github.com/jakemannix/commons-math ). -jake mannix Principal Software Engineer Search and Recommender Systems LinkedIn.com