commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [All][Math] New component: "Commons Geometry"?
Date Sun, 20 Aug 2017 21:12:33 GMT
This is a vote thread - not a discussion thread. If you want to discuss people’s votes please
move it to another thread.

Ralph

> On Aug 20, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 23:16:17 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote:
>> I'm +1 to this change, I would be more than happy to lend my hands to help
>> on this front. pardon me for being quite because some heavy work on my day
>> job.
>> 
>> I don't want to fork this thread to different discussion but I have one
>> simple doubt that rather creating whole new component why don't we just
>> create maven modules within CM? I understand that release becomes easy
>> with different component and some more other advantages  but same can be
>> done within single project. this is obvious question and which you guys
>> might have discussed before but I didn't found it in past mail archives,
> 
> Some of the objections against having new components were along
> those lines (i.e. "Why not make modules?").
> The problem is not with modules (I quite pushed for modularization
> in "Commons RNG" and "Commons Numbers"), it is with "Commons Math"
> requiring so much work to tackle the backlog (some identified issues
> are _years_ old), in addition to the work for modularizing it.
> 
> I don't think that it is acceptable to release code within a new suit
> ("module") without fixing it too.
> And other people here indicated that no Commons Math release should
> remove any code for which no alternative exists.
> So, "Commons Math" is stuck.
> 
> 
> Gilles
> 
>> though I saw a fork of CM made last year and "that" code base is doing
>> exactly what my doubt is. i.e sub-component as maven module.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Amey
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello.
>>> 
>>> [Time for a new episode in our "Ripping CM" series.]
>>> 
>>> How about creating "Commons Geometry"?
>>> 
>>> The rationale is comprised of the usual suspects:
>>> * Smaller and more focused component, hence:
>>>   - Consistent development and maintenance.
>>>   - Consistent release schedule, not encumbered by
>>>     changes (and endless discussions) in _totally_
>>>     unrelated code.
>>>   - Potential for attracting contributors not
>>>     interested in maintaining the (growing) backlog
>>>     of CM.
>>> * Self-contained: 96.3% of the "o.a.c.math4.geometry"
>>>   package have no dependency except:
>>>   - 4 classes now in "Commons Numbers".
>>>   - 2 methods and 1 constant in "MathUtils".
>>>   - CM exceptions. [Creating alternatives for those
>>>     will probably be the most time-consuming part of
>>>     the porting work.]
>>> 
>>> Moreover, none of the code in the "o.a.c.math4.geometry"
>>> package is used by another package of CM.
>>> 
>>> A new component would give the "geometry" codes a much
>>> better chance of being (confidently[1]) released, since
>>> CM is "stuck" for the foreseeable future.[2]
>>> 
>>> WDYT?
>>> 
>>> Gilles
>>> 
>>> [1] There seems to be only one issue reported in JIRA
>>>    that pertains to "geometry".
>>> [2] 54 issues yet to be fixed before the 4.0 release;
>>>    which, at the current rate, would lead to after 2025
>>>    (a very rough guess, I admit).
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message