Fwd: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation

["Edward J. Yoon" <ed...@apache.org>]

What do you think about below?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Halliday <sa...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 22, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation
To: dev@commons.apache.org



Edward, Hama looks fantastic! I fully agree, 'distributed' isn't agreeable
with commons-math. However, there might be parts of it that are relevant to
Hama.

We should absolutely ensure that the "ducks are aligned" between
commons-math and Hama. It would be win-win if Hama were able to use
commons-math's linear interfaces. commons-math will hopefully be moving to
use a netlib-java style backend (not user facing), we should ensure that
ScaLAPACK is handled in the same way.

I have some ideas of people who might be interested... I've encountered them
as maintainer of MTJ, but never worked with them. I'll dig through my e-mail
archive and make the intros.


Edward J. Yoon-2 wrote:
>
> That's really cool.
>
> BTW, Can I ask about the plan of data distribution strategies of your
> 'distributed' package in the future? IMO, it seems, it doesn't sit
> well with 'common-math' project.
>
> If there is a developer who wants to implement 'distributed', pls
> let us know, too. I'm working for the Hama
> (http://incubator.apache.org/hama) with ScaLAPACK members.
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Sam Halliday <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am a maintainer of the matrix-toolkits-java
>>
>>  http://code.google.com/p/matrix-toolkits-java/
>>
>> which is a comprehensive collection of matrix data structures, linear
>> solvers, least squares methods, eigenvalue and singular value
>> decompositions.
>>
>> This note is in regard to the commons-math library. It is clear that our
>> projects dovetail, especially when I look at "linear" in version 2.0 of
>> the
>> API. It would be good if we could either complement or consolidate
>> efforts,
>> rather than reproduce.
>>
>> It would be excellent if all the functionality of matrix-toolkits-java
>> were
>> available as part of commons-math. There is already too much diversity
>> and
>> un-maintained maths code out there for Java!
>>
>> As a start, I'd like to discourage the use of a solid implementation for
>> SparseReal{Vector, Matrix}... please prefer an interface approach,
>> allowing
>> implementations based on the Templates project:-
>>
>>  http://www.netlib.org/templates
>>
>> The reason is that the storage implementation should be related to the
>> type
>> of data being stored. For example, there are many well-known kinds of
>> sparse
>> matrix that are well suited to particular kinds of calculations...
>> consider
>> multiplying sparse matrices that you know to be diagonal!
>>
>> In general, the netlib.org folk (BLAS/LAPACK) have spent a *lot* of time
>> thinking about linear algebra and have set up unrivalled standard APIs
>> which
>> have been implemented right down to the architecture level. It would be a
>> major mistake if commons-math didn't build on their good work.
>>
>> I believe commons-math should move to a netlib-java backend (allowing the
>> use of machine optimised BLAS/LAPACK).
>>
>>  http://code.google.com/p/netlib-java/
>>
>> The largest problems facing MTJ are support for Sparse BLAS/LAPACK and
>> scalability to parallel architectures which use Parallel BLAS/LAPACK. The
>> former should be possible with some work within the current API, but I
>> fear
>> major API changes would be needed for the latter. I do not want the
>> commons-math API to walk into this trap without having first considered
>> future architectures! MTJ has a distributed package, but I am not sure if
>> this is something that is completely future proof either.
>>
>> What say ye'?
>>
>> --
>> Sam
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/commons-math%2C-matrix-toolkits-java-and-consolidation-tp23537813p23537813.html
>> Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @ NHN, corp.
> edwardyoon@apache.org
> http://blog.udanax.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/commons-math%2C-matrix-toolkits-java-and-consolidation-tp23537813p23668079.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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




-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @ NHN, corp.
edwardyoon@apache.org
http://blog.udanax.org

Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation

["Edward J. Yoon" <ed...@apache.org>]

Oh,.. That's really cool.

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Edward J. Yoon <ed...@apache.org> wrote:
>> What do you think about below?
>
> i been wonder for a while whether it's time for a Apache Math TLP...
>
> - robert
>



-- 
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @ NHN, corp.
edwardyoon@apache.org
http://blog.udanax.org

Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation

[Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Edward J. Yoon <ed...@apache.org> wrote:
> What do you think about below?

i been wonder for a while whether it's time for a Apache Math TLP...

- robert