You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> on 2016/02/02 22:50:55 UTC
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We need to agree on a name. My own preference is for a boring,
> descriptive name, but I am manifestly not a marketing guy, so won't
> be offended if others want to be more creative.
>
> My suggestion is
>
> MathComponents
>
> Hearkens back to HttpComponents, which has worked pretty well.
>
I've just started learning modern Greek and Math is Μαθηματικά -
(Mathematika) - so how about "Apache Mathematika"?
Niall
>
> Phil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 2/3/16 8:58 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> When HttpClient left Commons I believe they took that opportunity to re-architect their code. In the end I think it paid off, but for quite I while lots of folks (myself included) continued using Commons HttpClient because the new version was regarded as immature. They also wanted to widen their scope a bit so they went from Apache Commons HttpClient to Apache Http Components.
>
> I don’t contribute to or use Apache Math myself, but given my experience with HttpClient I would say that using a name that strays very far from Math would be doing yourselves a disservice. It is a bit of a stretch to expect people to remember that Commons Math is now Apache Aardvark or some other obscure name when the one you have is pretty much perfect. The only way people will find you is via a link on the Commons home page whereas math.apache.org <http://math.apache.org/> just makes sense & is easy to remember.
Thanks, Ralf. The point above, made also by Patrick, is what
changed my vote from my initial suggestion "MathComponents" to just
"math."
Phil
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:29 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:52:24 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well
>>>>>> kvown.
>>>>>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will require a
>>>>>> lot
>>>>>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X is
>>>>>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>>>>>> "commons"
>>>>>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math library
>>>>>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache math.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that the
>>>>> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
>>>>> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve and
>>>>> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
>>>>> the modules).
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO certainly
>>>> not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and fairly
>>>> slow to evolve".
>>>>
>>>> Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less consideration
>>>> for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means, among other
>>>> things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
>>>> Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
>>>>
>>>> If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of being
>>>> stable wrt the latest release.
>>>>
>>>> For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM 3.6,
>>>> no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be discussed
>>>> as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support only the
>>>> latest release.
>>>>
>>>> To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code while
>>>> not hindering development, including major refactoring to modernize
>>>> the code.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
>>>>> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that the
>>>>> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me in
>>>>> staying with that term.
>>>>>
>>>> Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
>>>> with the old ways.
>>>>
>>> Which "old ways"? I certainly hope you do not plan on shooting yourself in
>>> the foot by breaking BC on purpose.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>> IIRC, BC has never been broken in the last 7+ years, thanks to changing the
>> package name.
>> Yet this non-issue comes back every time I indicate that a project like CM
>> cannot be based on the postulate that refactoring is never needed.
>> The package name changes, hence the whole library can change while BC being
>> still safe.
>>
>> The old ways are that the default is that the same code gets transported to
>> the new package so that users can use old code in new clothes, just applying
>> a trivial search and replace.
>> That's (relatively) fine when all the current developers agree that no
>> better alternative can be provided for the next release.
>> When a problem has been identified, the new release should be taken as an
>> opportunity to solve it, even if it implies refactoring (and thus a major
>> release). [Someone said that we won't run out of release numbers.]
>>
>> If an identified need for bridging between old and new design arises, it
>> will be more interesting to find a way to achieve that, rather than having
>> to beg for every change on the assumption that some unknown user might be
>> unduly, affected by the evolution of the library (which is not true if the
>> package name has changed).
>>
>> Having multiple JARs would also alleviate the tension (provided that we drop
>> the postulate that everything should be "stable").
>>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 08:58:19 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> When HttpClient left Commons I believe they took that opportunity to
> re-architect their code. In the end I think it paid off,
Thanks for mentioning it.
I indeed see the move as a similar opportunity.
> but for quite
> I while lots of folks (myself included) continued using Commons
> HttpClient because the new version was regarded as immature.
That would be fine, I think.
I indirectly suggested as much by saying that people who are
happy with older versions Commons Math don't need to upgrade.
It remains to define a sustainable bug-fixing policy for these
old versions.
> They
> also wanted to widen their scope a bit so they went from Apache
> Commons HttpClient to Apache Http Components.
>
> I don’t contribute to or use Apache Math myself, but given my
> experience with HttpClient I would say that using a name that strays
> very far from Math would be doing yourselves a disservice. It is a
> bit of a stretch to expect people to remember that Commons Math is
> now
> Apache Aardvark or some other obscure name when the one you have is
> pretty much perfect. The only way people will find you is via a link
> on the Commons home page whereas math.apache.org
> <http://math.apache.org/> just makes sense & is easy to remember.
That's a valid argument, just not the only one.
IMO, a change of name would have been a good opportunity to stress a
change in the development management.
Keeping the same name seems to announce similar "change but no change"
for other issues that have been stagnant for years. I hope that the
(near) future will prove my fear was not justified.
Regards,
Gilles
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
>> On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:29 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:52:24 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Gilles
>>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> kvown.
>>>>>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will
>>>>>> require a
>>>>>> lot
>>>>>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP
>>>>>> named X is
>>>>>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>>>>>> "commons"
>>>>>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math
>>>>>> library
>>>>>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like
>>>>>> Apache math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that
>>>>> the
>>>>> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it
>>>>> is
>>>>> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve
>>>>> and
>>>>> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each
>>>>> of
>>>>> the modules).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO
>>>> certainly
>>>> not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and
>>>> fairly
>>>> slow to evolve".
>>>>
>>>> Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less
>>>> consideration
>>>> for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means,
>>>> among other
>>>> things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
>>>> Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
>>>>
>>>> If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of
>>>> being
>>>> stable wrt the latest release.
>>>>
>>>> For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM
>>>> 3.6,
>>>> no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be
>>>> discussed
>>>> as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support
>>>> only the
>>>> latest release.
>>>>
>>>> To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code
>>>> while
>>>> not hindering development, including major refactoring to
>>>> modernize
>>>> the code.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically
>>>> localised.
>>>>> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that
>>>>> the
>>>>> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from
>>>>> me in
>>>>> staying with that term.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
>>>> with the old ways.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which "old ways"? I certainly hope you do not plan on shooting
>>> yourself in
>>> the foot by breaking BC on purpose.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>
>> IIRC, BC has never been broken in the last 7+ years, thanks to
>> changing the
>> package name.
>> Yet this non-issue comes back every time I indicate that a project
>> like CM
>> cannot be based on the postulate that refactoring is never needed.
>> The package name changes, hence the whole library can change while
>> BC being
>> still safe.
>>
>> The old ways are that the default is that the same code gets
>> transported to
>> the new package so that users can use old code in new clothes, just
>> applying
>> a trivial search and replace.
>> That's (relatively) fine when all the current developers agree that
>> no
>> better alternative can be provided for the next release.
>> When a problem has been identified, the new release should be taken
>> as an
>> opportunity to solve it, even if it implies refactoring (and thus a
>> major
>> release). [Someone said that we won't run out of release numbers.]
>>
>> If an identified need for bridging between old and new design
>> arises, it
>> will be more interesting to find a way to achieve that, rather than
>> having
>> to beg for every change on the assumption that some unknown user
>> might be
>> unduly, affected by the evolution of the library (which is not true
>> if the
>> package name has changed).
>>
>> Having multiple JARs would also alleviate the tension (provided that
>> we drop
>> the postulate that everything should be "stable").
>>
>>
>> Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Just my 2 cents.
When HttpClient left Commons I believe they took that opportunity to re-architect their code. In the end I think it paid off, but for quite I while lots of folks (myself included) continued using Commons HttpClient because the new version was regarded as immature. They also wanted to widen their scope a bit so they went from Apache Commons HttpClient to Apache Http Components.
I don’t contribute to or use Apache Math myself, but given my experience with HttpClient I would say that using a name that strays very far from Math would be doing yourselves a disservice. It is a bit of a stretch to expect people to remember that Commons Math is now Apache Aardvark or some other obscure name when the one you have is pretty much perfect. The only way people will find you is via a link on the Commons home page whereas math.apache.org <http://math.apache.org/> just makes sense & is easy to remember.
Ralph
> On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:29 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:52:24 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well
>>>>> kvown.
>>>>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will require a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X is
>>>>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>>>>> "commons"
>>>>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math library
>>>>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache math.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that the
>>>> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
>>>> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve and
>>>> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
>>>> the modules).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO certainly
>>> not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and fairly
>>> slow to evolve".
>>>
>>> Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less consideration
>>> for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means, among other
>>> things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
>>> Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
>>>
>>> If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of being
>>> stable wrt the latest release.
>>>
>>> For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM 3.6,
>>> no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be discussed
>>> as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support only the
>>> latest release.
>>>
>>> To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code while
>>> not hindering development, including major refactoring to modernize
>>> the code.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
>>>> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that the
>>>> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me in
>>>> staying with that term.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
>>> with the old ways.
>>>
>>
>> Which "old ways"? I certainly hope you do not plan on shooting yourself in
>> the foot by breaking BC on purpose.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
> IIRC, BC has never been broken in the last 7+ years, thanks to changing the
> package name.
> Yet this non-issue comes back every time I indicate that a project like CM
> cannot be based on the postulate that refactoring is never needed.
> The package name changes, hence the whole library can change while BC being
> still safe.
>
> The old ways are that the default is that the same code gets transported to
> the new package so that users can use old code in new clothes, just applying
> a trivial search and replace.
> That's (relatively) fine when all the current developers agree that no
> better alternative can be provided for the next release.
> When a problem has been identified, the new release should be taken as an
> opportunity to solve it, even if it implies refactoring (and thus a major
> release). [Someone said that we won't run out of release numbers.]
>
> If an identified need for bridging between old and new design arises, it
> will be more interesting to find a way to achieve that, rather than having
> to beg for every change on the assumption that some unknown user might be
> unduly, affected by the evolution of the library (which is not true if the
> package name has changed).
>
> Having multiple JARs would also alleviate the tension (provided that we drop
> the postulate that everything should be "stable").
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:52:24 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is
>>>> well
>>>> kvown.
>>>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will
>>>> require a
>>>> lot
>>>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named
>>>> X is
>>>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>>>> "commons"
>>>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math
>>>> library
>>>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache
>>>> math.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that
>>> the
>>> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
>>> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve
>>> and
>>> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
>>> the modules).
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>> And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO certainly
>> not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and
>> fairly
>> slow to evolve".
>>
>> Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less
>> consideration
>> for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means, among
>> other
>> things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
>> Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
>>
>> If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of
>> being
>> stable wrt the latest release.
>>
>> For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM
>> 3.6,
>> no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be
>> discussed
>> as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support only
>> the
>> latest release.
>>
>> To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code while
>> not hindering development, including major refactoring to modernize
>> the code.
>>
>> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
>>> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that
>>> the
>>> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me
>>> in
>>> staying with that term.
>>>
>>
>> Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
>> with the old ways.
>>
>
> Which "old ways"? I certainly hope you do not plan on shooting
> yourself in
> the foot by breaking BC on purpose.
>
> Gary
>
IIRC, BC has never been broken in the last 7+ years, thanks to changing
the
package name.
Yet this non-issue comes back every time I indicate that a project like
CM
cannot be based on the postulate that refactoring is never needed.
The package name changes, hence the whole library can change while BC
being
still safe.
The old ways are that the default is that the same code gets
transported to
the new package so that users can use old code in new clothes, just
applying
a trivial search and replace.
That's (relatively) fine when all the current developers agree that no
better alternative can be provided for the next release.
When a problem has been identified, the new release should be taken as
an
opportunity to solve it, even if it implies refactoring (and thus a
major
release). [Someone said that we won't run out of release numbers.]
If an identified need for bridging between old and new design arises,
it
will be more interesting to find a way to achieve that, rather than
having
to beg for every change on the assumption that some unknown user might
be
unduly, affected by the evolution of the library (which is not true if
the
package name has changed).
Having multiple JARs would also alleviate the tension (provided that we
drop
the postulate that everything should be "stable").
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
>> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well
>>> kvown.
>>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will require a
>>> lot
>>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X is
>>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>>> "commons"
>>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math library
>>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache math.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that the
>> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
>> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve and
>> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
>> the modules).
>>
>
> Indeed.
> And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO certainly
> not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and fairly
> slow to evolve".
>
> Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less consideration
> for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means, among other
> things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
> Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
>
> If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of being
> stable wrt the latest release.
>
> For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM 3.6,
> no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be discussed
> as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support only the
> latest release.
>
> To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code while
> not hindering development, including major refactoring to modernize
> the code.
>
> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
>> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that the
>> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me in
>> staying with that term.
>>
>
> Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
> with the old ways.
>
Which "old ways"? I certainly hope you do not plan on shooting yourself in
the foot by breaking BC on purpose.
Gary
>
> Gilles
>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:11:24 +1100, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well
>> kvown.
>> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will
>> require a lot
>> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X
>> is
>> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing
>> "commons"
>> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math
>> library
>> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache
>> math.
>
> I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that the
> "Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
> taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve and
> hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
> the modules).
Indeed.
And if establishing is going to serve anything, it is IMHO certainly
not to be stuck with an a priori reputation of "being stable and fairly
slow to evolve".
Commons Math has been steadily growing, with less and less
consideration
for evolving with the language which it uses. IMO, that means, among
other
things, less and less hope to attract new contributors.
Being a TLP is by itself not going to change that.
If anything, the new project should mean a radical departure of being
stable wrt the latest release.
For users that don't care for new features and are happy with CM 3.6,
no problem; until they find a bug. What happens then should be
discussed
as soon as possible, as the default policy has been to support only the
latest release.
To change that, more people are needed to maintain legacy code while
not hindering development, including major refactoring to modernize
the code.
> FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
> The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that the
> module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me
> in
> staying with that term.
Staying with the old name is much less of a problem than staying
with the old ways.
Gilles
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Peter Ansell <an...@gmail.com>.
On 3 February 2016 at 11:30, Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well kvown.
> Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will require a lot
> of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X is
> really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing "commons"
> from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math library
> while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache math.
I don't think that outside of the Apache developer community that the
"Commons" reference is taken to mean immaturity. If anything, it is
taken to mean something that is stable and fairly slow to evolve and
hence can be reused fairly broadly (per the tight scopes of each of
the modules).
FWIW, the word "Math" on its own is fairly geographically localised.
The base word Mathematics is less localised. However, given that the
module has always been known as "Math", there are no qualms from me in
staying with that term.
Cheers,
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Patrick Meyer <me...@gmail.com>.
The Apache commons math library already has a reputation and is well kvown.
Any name that does not involve the words Apache and math will require a lot
of rebranding or years of explaining to people that the TLP named X is
really just the library formerly known as commons math. Removing "commons"
from the name is a good way to signal the maturity of the math library
while staying true to its Apache origin. That's why I like Apache math.
On Feb 2, 2016 5:50 PM, "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:17:06 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Niall Pemberton <
>> niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > We need to agree on a name. My own preference is for a boring,
>>> > descriptive name, but I am manifestly not a marketing guy, so won't
>>> > be offended if others want to be more creative.
>>> >
>>> > My suggestion is
>>> >
>>> > MathComponents
>>> >
>>> > Hearkens back to HttpComponents, which has worked pretty well.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I've just started learning modern Greek and Math is Μαθηματικά -
>>> (Mathematika) - so how about "Apache Mathematika"?
>>>
>>>
>> And get a nasty letter from https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ perhaps?
>>
>> Gary
>>
>
> Are you implying that they would dare challenge our usage of a name
> that is absolutely not entertaining any confusion?
> As anyone can observe,
> 1. there is a prefix referring to a native American tribe (which thus
> has nothing to do with programming computers), and
> 2. the (common) word referring to "mathematics" is clearly spelled
> differently.
>
> Thus, _nothing_ to worry about.
> 8-}
>
> Gilles
>
>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:17:06 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <ni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > We need to agree on a name. My own preference is for a boring,
>> > descriptive name, but I am manifestly not a marketing guy, so
>> won't
>> > be offended if others want to be more creative.
>> >
>> > My suggestion is
>> >
>> > MathComponents
>> >
>> > Hearkens back to HttpComponents, which has worked pretty well.
>> >
>>
>> I've just started learning modern Greek and Math is Μαθηματικά -
>> (Mathematika) - so how about "Apache Mathematika"?
>>
>
> And get a nasty letter from https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
> perhaps?
>
> Gary
Are you implying that they would dare challenge our usage of a name
that is absolutely not entertaining any confusion?
As anyone can observe,
1. there is a prefix referring to a native American tribe (which thus
has nothing to do with programming computers), and
2. the (common) word referring to "mathematics" is clearly spelled
differently.
Thus, _nothing_ to worry about.
8-}
Gilles
>>
>> Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We need to agree on a name. My own preference is for a boring,
> > descriptive name, but I am manifestly not a marketing guy, so won't
> > be offended if others want to be more creative.
> >
> > My suggestion is
> >
> > MathComponents
> >
> > Hearkens back to HttpComponents, which has worked pretty well.
> >
>
> I've just started learning modern Greek and Math is Μαθηματικά -
> (Mathematika) - so how about "Apache Mathematika"?
>
And get a nasty letter from https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/ perhaps?
Gary
>
> Niall
>
>
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory