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
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 continue on, and those that do not are frozen
at their
21 matches
Mail list logo
