You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> on 2011/05/14 11:08:18 UTC
[math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Hello,
Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component, Apache
Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the thread
about this creation here: <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
[math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may be a
good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in sandbox, in
fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in
Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical geometry but
I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package. So the
component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside
[math].
It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with geometry,
analysis, ode ...).
Does this suggestion makes sense ?
Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 14/05/2011 21:04, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 5/14/11 10:57 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 14/05/2011 16:03, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>> On 5/14/11 2:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>>>> Apache Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see
>>>> the thread about this creation here:
>>>> <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>>>
>>>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>>>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may
>>>> be a good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>>>> sandbox, in fact I already did all the necessary work to have a
>>>> working implementation, with tests and clean reports from
>>>> checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete for
>>>> dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an
>>>> implementation on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless
>>>> of the component hosting this package. So the component could be
>>>> promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside [math].
>>>>
>>>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>>>> geometry, analysis, ode ...).
>>>>
>>>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>>>
>>> +1 to integrate this code into [math]. I don't think we need
>>> anything beyond lazy consensus to do this, since we are not creating
>>> a Commons proper component here. Lets just give others a little
>>> while to weigh in.
>>>
>>> I am on the fence re top level package vs subpackage of geometry,
>>> leaning toward the latter. Why would you consider it as not a
>>> natural part of geometry?
>>
>> We could put it there. In this case, we should probably move the
>> current classes that are 3D specific in a sub-package too.
>>
>> The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package
>> with 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
>> o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
>> o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean
>> packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
>> o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
>>
>> We could import bsp by changing o.a.c.bsp into
>> o.a.c.math.geometry, putting the existing math 3D classes into the
>> new o.a.c.math.euclidean.threeD package. This would open the
>> opportunity to add 2D classes (some people have asked me if we
>> would consider adding them).
>>
>> The next step I mentioned in my original post would be to add
>> later on o.a.c.math.sphere.oneD (for modeling planar angular
>> sectors) and o.a.c.math.sphere.twoD (for modeling geographic data).
> Why wouldn't all of these be subpackages of geometry?
> o.a.c.m.geometry.euclidean, o.a.c.m.geometry.sphere, etc?
Yes, this is what I wanted to say. I failed my copy/paste, everything is
inside o.a.c.m.geometry.
Sorry for the confusion
Luc
>
> Phil
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/14/11 10:57 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 14/05/2011 16:03, Phil Steitz a écrit :
>> On 5/14/11 2:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>>> Apache Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see
>>> the thread about this creation here:
>>> <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>>
>>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may
>>> be a good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>>> sandbox, in fact I already did all the necessary work to have a
>>> working implementation, with tests and clean reports from
>>> checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete for
>>> dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an
>>> implementation on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless
>>> of the component hosting this package. So the component could be
>>> promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside [math].
>>>
>>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>>> geometry, analysis, ode ...).
>>>
>>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>>
>> +1 to integrate this code into [math]. I don't think we need
>> anything beyond lazy consensus to do this, since we are not creating
>> a Commons proper component here. Lets just give others a little
>> while to weigh in.
>>
>> I am on the fence re top level package vs subpackage of geometry,
>> leaning toward the latter. Why would you consider it as not a
>> natural part of geometry?
>
> We could put it there. In this case, we should probably move the
> current classes that are 3D specific in a sub-package too.
>
> The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package
> with 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
> o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
> o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean
> packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
> o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
>
> We could import bsp by changing o.a.c.bsp into
> o.a.c.math.geometry, putting the existing math 3D classes into the
> new o.a.c.math.euclidean.threeD package. This would open the
> opportunity to add 2D classes (some people have asked me if we
> would consider adding them).
>
> The next step I mentioned in my original post would be to add
> later on o.a.c.math.sphere.oneD (for modeling planar angular
> sectors) and o.a.c.math.sphere.twoD (for modeling geographic data).
Why wouldn't all of these be subpackages of geometry?
o.a.c.m.geometry.euclidean, o.a.c.m.geometry.sphere, etc?
Phil
>
> Luc
>
>>
>> Phil
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Konstantin Kolinko <kn...@gmail.com>.
2011/5/18 Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org>:
> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>>
>> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
>
> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
> together, giving oned, twod, threed.
d1, d2, d3 ?
I am OK with oned, twod, threed. though.
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Mikkel Meyer Andersen <mi...@mikl.dk>.
+1
>From me as well.
Den 18/05/2011 22.22 skrev "Phil Steitz" <ph...@gmail.com>:
> On 5/18/11 2:54 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe<Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
>>>
>>> Because it is easier to read, I would go for this one if it
>>> weren't advised
>>> against in the Java world (for some reason unknown to me).
>>>
>>>> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are
>>>> scrunched
>>>> together, giving oned, twod, threed.
>>>
>>> Indeed, habit (in Java) would dictate to use this one...
>>
>> OK, I can do this.
>> I let a few hours pass in case someone else wants to comment on
>> this, because I would not like to change it back to something else
>> several times (it has side effects on some other projects).
>
> +1 for oned, twod, threed
>
> Phil
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/18/11 2:54 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe<Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>>>>
>>>> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
>>
>> Because it is easier to read, I would go for this one if it
>> weren't advised
>> against in the Java world (for some reason unknown to me).
>>
>>> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are
>>> scrunched
>>> together, giving oned, twod, threed.
>>
>> Indeed, habit (in Java) would dictate to use this one...
>
> OK, I can do this.
> I let a few hours pass in case someone else wants to comment on
> this, because I would not like to change it back to something else
> several times (it has side effects on some other projects).
+1 for oned, twod, threed
Phil
>
> Luc
>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 18/05/2011 11:49, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe<Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>>>
>>> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
>
> Because it is easier to read, I would go for this one if it weren't advised
> against in the Java world (for some reason unknown to me).
>
>> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
>> together, giving oned, twod, threed.
>
> Indeed, habit (in Java) would dictate to use this one...
OK, I can do this.
I let a few hours pass in case someone else wants to comment on this,
because I would not like to change it back to something else several
times (it has side effects on some other projects).
Luc
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache
Commons Math
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
> >
> > Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
Because it is easier to read, I would go for this one if it weren't advised
against in the Java world (for some reason unknown to me).
> In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
> together, giving oned, twod, threed.
Indeed, habit (in Java) would dictate to use this one...
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@joda.org>.
On 18 May 2011 09:11, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
>
> Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
In the variety of Java source I've seen, multiple words are scrunched
together, giving oned, twod, threed.
Stephen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 18/05/2011 09:58, Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Le 18/05/2011 01:19, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>> The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with
>>> 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
>>> o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
>>> o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean
>>> packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
>>> o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
>>
>> Package names containing capital letters?
>
> Yes, I hesitated when I created them the first time but java forbid
> using either a number as the first character or a dash as a separator
> for example, so I used camel style to improve readability. I could have
> gone with an underscore, which is allowed (but I don't like it, it's
> just a matter of taste).
>
> Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
Of course this should read: one_d, two_d and three_d ...
Luc
>
> Luc
>
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 18/05/2011 01:19, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> [...]
>> The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with
>> 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
>> o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
>> o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean
>> packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
>> o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
>
> Package names containing capital letters?
Yes, I hesitated when I created them the first time but java forbid
using either a number as the first character or a dash as a separator
for example, so I used camel style to improve readability. I could have
gone with an underscore, which is allowed (but I don't like it, it's
just a matter of taste).
Should I replace with one-d, two-d and three-d ?
Luc
>
>> [...]
>
> Gilles
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache
Commons Math
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
> [...]
> The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with
> 6 3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
> o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
> o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean
> packages o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
> o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
Package names containing capital letters?
> [...]
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 14/05/2011 16:03, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 5/14/11 2:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>> Apache Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see
>> the thread about this creation here:
>> <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>
>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may
>> be a good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>> sandbox, in fact I already did all the necessary work to have a
>> working implementation, with tests and clean reports from
>> checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete for
>> dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an
>> implementation on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless
>> of the component hosting this package. So the component could be
>> promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside [math].
>>
>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>> geometry, analysis, ode ...).
>>
>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>
> +1 to integrate this code into [math]. I don't think we need
> anything beyond lazy consensus to do this, since we are not creating
> a Commons proper component here. Lets just give others a little
> while to weigh in.
>
> I am on the fence re top level package vs subpackage of geometry,
> leaning toward the latter. Why would you consider it as not a
> natural part of geometry?
We could put it there. In this case, we should probably move the current
classes that are 3D specific in a sub-package too.
The current layout in [math] is one o.a.c.math.geometry package with 6
3D specif classes. The current layout in [bsp] is one
o.a.c.bsp.partitioning package that is dimension-independent, one
o.a.c.bsp.utility package, three dimension-specific euclidean packages
o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.oneD, o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.twoD,
o.a.c.bsp.euclidean.threeD.
We could import bsp by changing o.a.c.bsp into o.a.c.math.geometry,
putting the existing math 3D classes into the new
o.a.c.math.euclidean.threeD package. This would open the opportunity to
add 2D classes (some people have asked me if we would consider adding them).
The next step I mentioned in my original post would be to add later on
o.a.c.math.sphere.oneD (for modeling planar angular sectors) and
o.a.c.math.sphere.twoD (for modeling geographic data).
Luc
>
> Phil
>> Luc
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/14/11 2:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
> Apache Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see
> the thread about this creation here:
> <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>
> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may
> be a good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
> sandbox, in fact I already did all the necessary work to have a
> working implementation, with tests and clean reports from
> checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete for
> dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an
> implementation on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless
> of the component hosting this package. So the component could be
> promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside [math].
>
> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
> geometry, analysis, ode ...).
>
> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
+1 to integrate this code into [math]. I don't think we need
anything beyond lazy consensus to do this, since we are not creating
a Commons proper component here. Lets just give others a little
while to weigh in.
I am on the fence re top level package vs subpackage of geometry,
leaning toward the latter. Why would you consider it as not a
natural part of geometry?
Phil
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache
Commons Math
Posted by Gilles Sadowski <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 07:42:45PM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 14/05/2011 17:54, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> >On 5/14/11 8:31 AM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote:
> >>Phil,
> >>
> >>>Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF
> >>>perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related)
> >>>change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your
> >>>veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed
> >>>for inclusion?
> >>
> >>In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not
> >>'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my
> >>opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math.
> >
> >OK. As a committer, you do have the ability to veto any code
> >change. When you do that, you are expected to provide a technical
> >reason.
> >
> >Can you explain a little more why you consider it a bad idea to
> >include the [bsp] code in [math]? I understand (and share) your
> >frustration on getting some aspects of the 3.0 API settled; but I
> >think we are making progress and I don't see adding the bsp code as
> >really making a difference there. It does not look to me like it
> >will be hard to adapt the exceptions management or other aspects of
> >the [bsp] API to whatever we settle on for [math] 3.0, and without
> >speaking for him, I assume that Luc is willing to do whatever
> >repackaging or other work is necessary to bring it in.
>
> The repackaging was almost already done when the component was put
> in sandbox. Of course I will adapt strictly to the current [math]
> API, i.e. I will use MathRuntimeException as the base class for
> BSPException.
You'd better not: "MathRuntimeException" is scheduled for deletion.
Cf. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-566
> [...]
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Dimitri Pourbaix <po...@astro.ulb.ac.be>.
Luc,
> Dimitri, I don't think you are really speaking about exception repackaging,
> you pointed it out only has an example of endless discussions, among
> others.
right, it was just an example.
I change to +1 because I have not technical point against its inclusion.
I nevertheless expect a better policity for decision making on 'issues'
different from bug fixes.
Regards,
Dim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Pourbaix *
Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix * mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 14/05/2011 17:54, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 5/14/11 8:31 AM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote:
>> Phil,
>>
>>> Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF
>>> perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related)
>>> change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your
>>> veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed
>>> for inclusion?
>>
>> In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not
>> 'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my
>> opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math.
>
> OK. As a committer, you do have the ability to veto any code
> change. When you do that, you are expected to provide a technical
> reason.
>
> Can you explain a little more why you consider it a bad idea to
> include the [bsp] code in [math]? I understand (and share) your
> frustration on getting some aspects of the 3.0 API settled; but I
> think we are making progress and I don't see adding the bsp code as
> really making a difference there. It does not look to me like it
> will be hard to adapt the exceptions management or other aspects of
> the [bsp] API to whatever we settle on for [math] 3.0, and without
> speaking for him, I assume that Luc is willing to do whatever
> repackaging or other work is necessary to bring it in.
The repackaging was almost already done when the component was put in
sandbox. Of course I will adapt strictly to the current [math] API, i.e.
I will use MathRuntimeException as the base class for BSPException.
Dimitri, I don't think you are really speaking about exception
repackaging, you pointed it out only has an example of endless
discussions, among others. I share your disappointment about this and
would hope we converge more quickly. It seemed we did finally converge
here, so the discussions where finally not endless. One of the reasons
we had a hard time getting a consensus is that exceptions are used
everywhere, so everybody is concerned but at the same time it is clearly
not the core of the library, they are only a tool. This is a clear
syndrom of bikeshedding (sess
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality>). We are
out of it now.
I don't expect BSP or any other new specific feature added to [math]
would drastically impair our capability to publish new versions.
Specific features are mostly independent of each others and don't
trigger much buzz. After all, the other part of Parkinson's law of
triviality is that important stuff is settled more quickly than trivial
stuff. The only other long discussion I expect in the near future is
linear algebra because it is also used in many places and in many
different contexts.
Does this explanation help ? Would you consider changing your -1 into a -0 ?
best regards,
Luc
>
> Phil
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dim.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Dimitri Pourbaix *
>> Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
>> CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
>> Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
>> Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
>> B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
>> http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix *
>> mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Dmitry, this might be helpful:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
The goal with Apache voting is not usually a simple majority, but rather
full consensus where abstentions are counted as acceptance.
Your -1 vote derails the consensus, but appears to have been made for
non-technical reasons. One way forward is for you to provide a technical
rationale (suppose that BSP did something totally non-mathematical, for
instance, or suppose that it had obvious bugs or no tests cases). Another
way forward would be to change your vote to -0 to indicate you are very
happy with the change, but do not intend to block it.
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not
> > 'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my
> > opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math.
>
> OK. As a committer, you do have the ability to veto any code
> change. When you do that, you are expected to provide a technical
> reason.
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/14/11 8:31 AM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote:
> Phil,
>
>> Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF
>> perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related)
>> change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your
>> veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed
>> for inclusion?
>
> In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not
> 'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my
> opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math.
OK. As a committer, you do have the ability to veto any code
change. When you do that, you are expected to provide a technical
reason.
Can you explain a little more why you consider it a bad idea to
include the [bsp] code in [math]? I understand (and share) your
frustration on getting some aspects of the 3.0 API settled; but I
think we are making progress and I don't see adding the bsp code as
really making a difference there. It does not look to me like it
will be hard to adapt the exceptions management or other aspects of
the [bsp] API to whatever we settle on for [math] 3.0, and without
speaking for him, I assume that Luc is willing to do whatever
repackaging or other work is necessary to bring it in.
Phil
>
> Regards,
> Dim.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dimitri Pourbaix *
> Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
> CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
> Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
> Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
> B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
> http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix *
> mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Dimitri Pourbaix <po...@astro.ulb.ac.be>.
Phil,
> Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF
> perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related)
> change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your
> veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed
> for inclusion?
In a strict democracy, there is nothing such as a veto! I am not
'vetoing' anything (and do not want to), I am only expressing my
opinion, as requested, to Luc's wish to add this component to math.
Regards,
Dim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Pourbaix *
Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix * mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/14/11 7:28 AM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote:
> Luc,
>
>> package. So the component could be promoted and it really makes
>> sense
>> to have it inside [math].
>
> Over the past several months, I read endless discussions regarding
> some
> 'philosophical' questions (e.g. on exceptions) affecting
> commons-math,
> all delaying the relaese of 2.2. Unless one first adopts a clear
> poli-
> tical procedure as far as changes are concerned (especially those
> affec-
> ting the way of coding rather than bug fixed), I fear that making
> math
> bigger, with this new component, will only add its set of endless
> back-and-forth discussions.
>
> For the time being, I am -1.
Sorry, Dmitri, but that is not an acceptable "veto" from the ASF
perspective. When you say "-1" to a technical (code-related)
change, you need to provide a technical reason to support your
veto. Do you have technical problems with the code being proposed
for inclusion?
Phil
>
> Regards,
> Dim.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dimitri Pourbaix *
> Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
> CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
> Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
> Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
> B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
> http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix *
> mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Dimitri Pourbaix <po...@astro.ulb.ac.be>.
Luc,
> package. So the component could be promoted and it really makes sense
> to have it inside [math].
Over the past several months, I read endless discussions regarding some
'philosophical' questions (e.g. on exceptions) affecting commons-math,
all delaying the relaese of 2.2. Unless one first adopts a clear poli-
tical procedure as far as changes are concerned (especially those affec-
ting the way of coding rather than bug fixed), I fear that making math
bigger, with this new component, will only add its set of endless
back-and-forth discussions.
For the time being, I am -1.
Regards,
Dim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Pourbaix *
Institut d'Astronomie et d'Astrophysique * Don't worry, be happy
CP 226, office 2.N4.211, building NO * and CARPE DIEM.
Universite Libre de Bruxelles *
Boulevard du Triomphe * Tel : +32-2-650.35.71
B-1050 Bruxelles * Fax : +32-2-650.42.26
http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/~pourbaix * mailto:pourbaix@astro.ulb.ac.be
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 16/05/2011 16:19, Matt Benson a écrit :
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Phil Steitz<ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/11 9:43 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 15/05/2011 10:30, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>>>> +1
>>>>> From me, too.
>>>
>>> OK, it's done now. I have put everything as subpackages of
>>> geometry as suggested by Phil, and I have taken care to use the
>>> proper new exceptions as suggested by Gilles.
>>>
>>> I could simply remove the bsp directory from sandbox now, but I
>>> think it is a little more complicated, as we need to remove the
>>> component from various lists (in the sandbox page, in Jira ...).
>>> Whate is the proper procedure for this ?
>> There is no expectation that sandbox components will stay around.
>> Just svn rm it and edit the site (commons-site) to get rid of it.
>> IIRC, we don't have separate JIRA projects for sandbox components,
>> so there is nothing needed there.
>>
>
> You would also want to edit the svn:externals property that points to
> bsp/trunk from trunks-sandbox .
Thanks, I think I have cleaned everything and deployed the updated
commons site. It should show up at next resync.
Luc
>
> Matt
>
>> Phil
>>>
>>> Luc
>>>
>>>> Den 14/05/2011 11.08 skrev "Luc Maisonobe"<Lu...@free.fr>:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>>>>> Apache
>>>>> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the
>>>>> thread
>>>>> about this creation
>>>>> here:<http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>>>>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it
>>>>> may be a
>>>>> good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>>>>> sandbox, in
>>>>> fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
>>>>> implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
>>>>> findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and
>>>>> 3 in
>>>>> Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical
>>>>> geometry but
>>>>> I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package.
>>>>> So the
>>>>> component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it
>>>>> inside
>>>>> [math].
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>>>>> geometry,
>>>>> analysis, ode ...).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>>>>> Luc
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/11 9:43 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 15/05/2011 10:30, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>>> +1
>>>> From me, too.
>>
>> OK, it's done now. I have put everything as subpackages of
>> geometry as suggested by Phil, and I have taken care to use the
>> proper new exceptions as suggested by Gilles.
>>
>> I could simply remove the bsp directory from sandbox now, but I
>> think it is a little more complicated, as we need to remove the
>> component from various lists (in the sandbox page, in Jira ...).
>> Whate is the proper procedure for this ?
> There is no expectation that sandbox components will stay around.
> Just svn rm it and edit the site (commons-site) to get rid of it.
> IIRC, we don't have separate JIRA projects for sandbox components,
> so there is nothing needed there.
>
You would also want to edit the svn:externals property that points to
bsp/trunk from trunks-sandbox .
Matt
> Phil
>>
>> Luc
>>
>>> Den 14/05/2011 11.08 skrev "Luc Maisonobe"<Lu...@free.fr>:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>>>> Apache
>>>> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the
>>>> thread
>>>> about this creation
>>>> here:<http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>>>
>>>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>>>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it
>>>> may be a
>>>> good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>>>> sandbox, in
>>>> fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
>>>> implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
>>>> findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and
>>>> 3 in
>>>> Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical
>>>> geometry but
>>>> I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package.
>>>> So the
>>>> component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it
>>>> inside
>>>> [math].
>>>>
>>>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>>>> geometry,
>>>> analysis, ode ...).
>>>>
>>>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>>>> Luc
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/15/11 9:43 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 15/05/2011 10:30, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>> +1
>>> From me, too.
>
> OK, it's done now. I have put everything as subpackages of
> geometry as suggested by Phil, and I have taken care to use the
> proper new exceptions as suggested by Gilles.
>
> I could simply remove the bsp directory from sandbox now, but I
> think it is a little more complicated, as we need to remove the
> component from various lists (in the sandbox page, in Jira ...).
> Whate is the proper procedure for this ?
There is no expectation that sandbox components will stay around.
Just svn rm it and edit the site (commons-site) to get rid of it.
IIRC, we don't have separate JIRA projects for sandbox components,
so there is nothing needed there.
Phil
>
> Luc
>
>> Den 14/05/2011 11.08 skrev "Luc Maisonobe"<Lu...@free.fr>:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component,
>>> Apache
>>> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the
>>> thread
>>> about this creation
>>> here:<http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>>
>>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it
>>> may be a
>>> good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in
>>> sandbox, in
>>> fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
>>> implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
>>> findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and
>>> 3 in
>>> Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical
>>> geometry but
>>> I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package.
>>> So the
>>> component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it
>>> inside
>>> [math].
>>>
>>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with
>>> geometry,
>>> analysis, ode ...).
>>>
>>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons
Math
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 15/05/2011 10:30, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
> +1
>> From me, too.
OK, it's done now. I have put everything as subpackages of geometry as
suggested by Phil, and I have taken care to use the proper new
exceptions as suggested by Gilles.
I could simply remove the bsp directory from sandbox now, but I think it
is a little more complicated, as we need to remove the component from
various lists (in the sandbox page, in Jira ...). Whate is the proper
procedure for this ?
Luc
> Den 14/05/2011 11.08 skrev "Luc Maisonobe"<Lu...@free.fr>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component, Apache
>> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the thread
>> about this creation here:<http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>>
>> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
>> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may be a
>> good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in sandbox, in
>> fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
>> implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
>> findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in
>> Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical geometry but
>> I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package. So the
>> component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside
>> [math].
>>
>> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with geometry,
>> analysis, ode ...).
>>
>> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
>> Luc
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Mikkel Meyer Andersen <mi...@mikl.dk>.
+1
>From me, too.
Den 14/05/2011 11.08 skrev "Luc Maisonobe" <Lu...@free.fr>:
> Hello,
>
> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component, Apache
> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the thread
> about this creation here: <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>
> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into
> [math]. We are creating a new major release for [math], so it may be a
> good time to do so. Also as I changed the code to put it in sandbox, in
> fact I already did all the necessary work to have a working
> implementation, with tests and clean reports from checkstyle and
> findbugs. The implementation is complete for dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in
> Cartesian space. I also need an implementation on spherical geometry but
> I can do that regardless of the component hosting this package. So the
> component could be promoted and it really makes sense to have it inside
> [math].
>
> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with geometry,
> analysis, ode ...).
>
> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
Re: [math] [sandbox] merging Apache Commons BSP into Apache Commons Math
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
I'm +1 on this,
a major release with new features sounds very nice!
Have a nice WE,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some weeks ago, I have imported in the sandbox a new component, Apache
> Commons BSP which implements Binary Partitioning Trees (see the thread about
> this creation here: <http://markmail.org/thread/mcg23trgtl472ica>).
>
> Thinking further about it, I would like to directly merge it into [math]. We
> are creating a new major release for [math], so it may be a good time to do
> so. Also as I changed the code to put it in sandbox, in fact I already did
> all the necessary work to have a working implementation, with tests and
> clean reports from checkstyle and findbugs. The implementation is complete
> for dimensions 1, 2 and 3 in Cartesian space. I also need an implementation
> on spherical geometry but I can do that regardless of the component hosting
> this package. So the component could be promoted and it really makes sense
> to have it inside [math].
>
> It could be put as a bsp package at top level (alongside with geometry,
> analysis, ode ...).
>
> Does this suggestion makes sense ?
> Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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