On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:30:13 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Hello.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
That depends. If some packages of t
Hello.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 15:52:40 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Mostly yes, but some utilities are used by packages that would
be good components (e.g. "o.a.c.m.distribution"). For example,
an efficient and robust root solver ("BrentSolver").
On 06/21/2016 08:07 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would want
to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the pattern used
by httpclient. I believe they took
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Jochen,
>>
>> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
>>> wrote:
>>>
That depends. If some packages of the current CM should
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would
>> want to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the
>> pattern used by httpclient. I believe they took th
Hello.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:58:40 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own
component in Commons, these packages have to be identified.
Whoever
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> Mostly yes, but some utilities are used by packages that would
> be good components (e.g. "o.a.c.m.distribution"). For example,
> an efficient and robust root solver ("BrentSolver").
>
The analysis library is admirably integrated. For example,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Maybe. That could depend on whether there is anyone at Commons that would
> want to participate in the component. Another option is to follow the pattern
> used by httpclient. I believe they took the last version of commons
> httpclient and
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 12:58 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jochen,
>
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own
>>> component in Commons, these packages have to be ident
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
>> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own
>> component in Commons, these packages have to be identified.
>
> Whoever would support such a lunacy? Either CM moves entirely,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> I think I made a respectable case for such a split in my thread titled
> apache,commons,math . Perhaps you could identify some points in that post
> that you disagree with? That's what others did.
As I wrote: I am trying to concentrate effor
I think I made a respectable case for such a split in my thread titled
apache,commons,math . Perhaps you could identify some points in that post
that you disagree with? That's what others did.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
>
>
> Whoever would support such a lunacy? Eith
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> That depends. If some packages of the current CM should stay as own
> component in Commons, these packages have to be identified.
Whoever would support such a lunacy? Either CM moves entirely, or not at all.
Jochen
--
The next time you
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:31:23 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons
>>> component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which we
>>> might develop a new Math TLP or incubator proj
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:31:23 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
>>
>> Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons
>> component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which we
>> might develop a new Math TLP or incubator project in which components of
>> the project
Hi Eric and Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
[snip]
> Here is a list of usage count of CM packages (Github search[1]):
> o.a.c.math3.analysis 2
> o.a.c.math3.distribution 39
> o.a.c.math3.exception 3
> o.a.c.math3.linear 10
> o.a.c.math3.primes1
> o.a.c.math3.random
Hi.
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:31:23 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons
component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which
we
might develop a new Math TLP or incubator project in which components
of
the project that fi
After reading more about the proposed changes, I am now comfortable with
dividing the library into separate components. However, I have two
concerns. First, a package or class that passes unit tests should not be
abandoned or depricated just because there is no one to support it. It
should only be
Like I said, my untrained eye. Sounds like it should definitely be kept.
Eric
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:47 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20 June 2016 at 10:31, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> > Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons
> > component, and more sophisticated spin-out
On 20 June 2016 at 10:31, Eric Barnhill wrote:
> Here's a proposed draft for how o.a.c.m might be split into a commons
> component, and more sophisticated spin-out components, around which we
> might develop a new Math TLP or incubator project in which components of
> the project that find backers
20 matches
Mail list logo
