commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [math] Incorporating JAMA code to solve problems?
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:33:28 GMT
On 7/5/11 2:07 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> JAMA definitely is good algorithm wise.  API wise, it is very tied to a
> single representation which isn't acceptable.
> If you are finding JAMA more stable, then I would be +1 (in my own
> non-binding way) for copying the algorithms, but -1 for adding a dependency.

+1 by all means if you can improve the algorithms in [math] by
borrowing from Jama, patches are welcome.  Some of the [math] linear
algebra algorithms are already adapted from Jama. 

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chris Nix <> wrote:
>> CM is a great package, but I email to inquire if could we could solve
>> easily
>> the issues above by simply implementing public-domain JAMA-like code within
>> the linear algebra sub-package or, perhaps more controversially, have JAMA
>> as a dependency to CM?
>> Is 'home-grown' code over public-domain code an objective of Commons Math?
>>  Like I say, it's a bold question.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message