Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Jake Mannix a écrit : >> 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 rea

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: > - "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > >> Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how >> would >> >> that work for client implementations? And everywhere in sight inside >> of the >> >> linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatri

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

The deprecation should be a pretty significant warning. Adding javadoc to RealVector to point people over at the AbstractRealVector with a recommendation that they not implement all the methods would help reinforce that message. On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > what I ha

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Jake Mannix a écrit : > 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, s

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

- Original Message - From: "Ted Dunning" To: "Commons Developers List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [math] Questions about the linear package On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, wrote: we would provide a default implementation for thes

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

I didn't get the impression that f2j was active at all, either. Weren't there other options for MTJ to get performance or had they limited their scope to f2j produced libraries and decided to ignore Atlas? On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > f2j is distributed under a modifi

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Jake Mannix a écrit : > 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 th

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Jake Mannix a écrit : > 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 on

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: > we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if > someone did really create a class that implements RealVector, he would > simply have to say it extends AbstractRealVector instead. So there is a > clear gain to accept this kind of i

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 change in the sens that > existing

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

- "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how > would > > that work for client implementations? And everywhere in sight inside > of the > > linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatrix, so > you'd > have to cast to concr

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how would that work for client implementations? And everywhere in sight inside of the linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatrix, so you'd have to cast to concrete implementation to get access to these new metho

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

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: > Question about this: if RealVector is locked as an interface - no changes > until > 3.0 - and the

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 > >>> sparse, there's no way to just iterate over the non-zero

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

Jake Mannix a écrit : > 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 ab

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

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 >>> sparse, there's no way to just iterate over the non-zero entries? >>> What's >>> worse, you can't even subclass OpenMapVector a

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

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

- "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 performance > linear > package such as MTJ into math. Is

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

- "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > Greetings, commons-math! > > I've been looking at a variety of apache/bsd-licensed linear > libraries for > use in massively parallel machine-learning applications I've been > working on > (I am housing my own open-source library at > http://decomposer.googleco

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

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 performance linear package such as MTJ into math. Is that stalled? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM

[math] Questions about the linear package

Greetings, commons-math! I've been looking at a variety of apache/bsd-licensed linear libraries for use in massively parallel machine-learning applications I've been working on (I am housing my own open-source library at http://decomposer.googlecode.com, and am looking at integrating with/using/