You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> on 2016/06/21 19:32:08 UTC
[VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Hello.
This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
Representation of rational numbers
The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
packages:
org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
Notes:
* This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
component
(cf. other VOTE thread).
* Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
* API: stable.
* Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
support,
bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
[ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
[ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
Thanks,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com>.
I’m going to have a go at the implementation here. I figure we can talk more about it after we have a proposed solution in place.
-Rob
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:05:25 -0400, Matt Adereth wrote:
>> Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement interface, which I can't
>> imagine moving to Lang.
>
> IMO, this adds to having a standalone component that can cater for simple
> and advanced usage. [E.g. casual use would refer to "Fraction" (without
> needing to be aware of the base class).]
>
>
> Gilles
>
>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
>>>>> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in
>>>>> it
>>>>> there because Commons Math is too specialized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> He did not seem to have to depend on (a huge, specialized) CM just to use
>>> the fraction concept.
>>>
>>> A standalone component fills that bill, while providing the advantage that,
>>> by the same argument, other developers might not wish to depend on a huge
>>> CL
>>> just to get that functionality.
>>>
>>> I read Gary’s comment as a
>>>>> rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons
>>>>> Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own project.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> That would have been the common denominator.
>>> I strongly suspect that no one suggested because they did not want "their"
>>> library to depend on a "external" component. [This is all moot (to say the
>>> least) given that the dependency would be towards a Commons library!]
>>>
>>> From a developer POV, it does not make sense to maintain two packages
>>> with the exact same purpose.
>>>
>>> After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is simply
>>>>> too small to warrant being a project on its own.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not a full-fledged "project", just a Commons component.
>>>
>>> How do get to that feeling? Is there a way to make a workable rule for
>>> creating synergies rather than use up the resources on overlapping codes?
>>>
>>> Does what is in Commons
>>>>> Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so,
>>>>> perhaps
>>>>> the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> One of the options which I suggested.
>>>
>>> But since people preferred to duplicate functionality rather than join
>>> forces
>>> on a common package, it is now additional work to check whether both
>>> packages
>>> provide the same value, or how they should be merged.
>>>
>>> From my Smalltalk days, I fondly recall Smalltalk's Fraction [1] being a
>>>> basic object like Integer, very cool. So yeah, it could happily live as a
>>>> first class citizen in Commons Lang AFAIC. But what I do not want to
>>>> decide
>>>> when I am coding up an app, is which Fraction to use, the one from Commons
>>>> Foo, Commons Bar or FooBar. I want one well maintained class I can rely
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And how to judge which implementation is more reliable?
>>> And if you arrived at a reasoned choice, why allow unsuspecting users to
>>> make the wrong choice?
>>> And if both are of equal value, why have two???
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://chara.cs.illinois.edu/sites/cs528/files/arithmetic-and-double-dispatching-in-smalltalk-80.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
>>>>> >> One previous thread on the subject:
>>>>> >> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The final sentence of that thread:
>>>>> > "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
>>>>> > It stands on its own nicely IMO."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
>>>>> > Commons component?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
>>>>> > Yet the inertia prevailed.]
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Gilles
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Brent
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <brent.worden@gmail.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this
>>>>> very
>>>>> >>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning
>>>>> for
>>>>> >>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives
>>>>> to
>>>>> find
>>>>> >>> the thread if I find time.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Brent
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>>>> >>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <
>>>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>>>> >>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>>>> >>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue
>>>>> using
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>> old version if the need it.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Ralph
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 07:05:25 -0400, Matt Adereth wrote:
> Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement interface, which I
> can't
> imagine moving to Lang.
IMO, this adds to having a standalone component that can cater for
simple
and advanced usage. [E.g. casual use would refer to "Fraction"
(without
needing to be aware of the base class).]
Gilles
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gilles
> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers
>>> <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne
>>> wanted
>>>> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more
>>>> value in
>>>> it
>>>> there because Commons Math is too specialized.
>>>>
>>>
>> He did not seem to have to depend on (a huge, specialized) CM just
>> to use
>> the fraction concept.
>>
>> A standalone component fills that bill, while providing the
>> advantage that,
>> by the same argument, other developers might not wish to depend on a
>> huge
>> CL
>> just to get that functionality.
>>
>> I read Gary\u2019s comment as a
>>>> rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was \u201cfoundational\u201d for
>>>> Commons
>>>> Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own
>>>> project.
>>>>
>>>
>> That would have been the common denominator.
>> I strongly suspect that no one suggested because they did not want
>> "their"
>> library to depend on a "external" component. [This is all moot (to
>> say the
>> least) given that the dependency would be towards a Commons
>> library!]
>>
>> From a developer POV, it does not make sense to maintain two
>> packages
>> with the exact same purpose.
>>
>> After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is
>> simply
>>>> too small to warrant being a project on its own.
>>>>
>>>
>> Not a full-fledged "project", just a Commons component.
>>
>> How do get to that feeling? Is there a way to make a workable rule
>> for
>> creating synergies rather than use up the resources on overlapping
>> codes?
>>
>> Does what is in Commons
>>>> Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so,
>>>> perhaps
>>>> the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
>>>>
>>>
>> One of the options which I suggested.
>>
>> But since people preferred to duplicate functionality rather than
>> join
>> forces
>> on a common package, it is now additional work to check whether both
>> packages
>> provide the same value, or how they should be merged.
>>
>> From my Smalltalk days, I fondly recall Smalltalk's Fraction [1]
>> being a
>>> basic object like Integer, very cool. So yeah, it could happily
>>> live as a
>>> first class citizen in Commons Lang AFAIC. But what I do not want
>>> to
>>> decide
>>> when I am coding up an app, is which Fraction to use, the one from
>>> Commons
>>> Foo, Commons Bar or FooBar. I want one well maintained class I can
>>> rely
>>> on.
>>>
>>
>> And how to judge which implementation is more reliable?
>> And if you arrived at a reasoned choice, why allow unsuspecting
>> users to
>> make the wrong choice?
>> And if both are of equal value, why have two???
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://chara.cs.illinois.edu/sites/cs528/files/arithmetic-and-double-dispatching-in-smalltalk-80.pdf
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles
>>>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
>>>> >> One previous thread on the subject:
>>>> >> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
>>>> >
>>>> > The final sentence of that thread:
>>>> > "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
>>>> > It stands on its own nicely IMO."
>>>> >
>>>> > What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
>>>> > Commons component?
>>>> >
>>>> > [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
>>>> > Yet the inertia prevailed.]
>>>> >
>>>> > Gilles
>>>> >
>>>> >> Brent
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden
>>>> <brent.worden@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around
>>>> this
>>>> very
>>>> >>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the
>>>> reasoning
>>>> for
>>>> >>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the
>>>> archives
>>>> to
>>>> find
>>>> >>> the thread if I find time.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Brent
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>>> >>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <
>>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>>> >>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>>> >>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Why wouldn\u2019t you be able to. The user would be able to
>>>> continue
>>>> using
>>>> the
>>>> >>>> old version if the need it.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Matt Adereth <ad...@gmail.com>.
Fraction in o.a.c.m. implements the FieldElement interface, which I can't
imagine moving to Lang.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
>>> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in
>>> it
>>> there because Commons Math is too specialized.
>>>
>>
> He did not seem to have to depend on (a huge, specialized) CM just to use
> the fraction concept.
>
> A standalone component fills that bill, while providing the advantage that,
> by the same argument, other developers might not wish to depend on a huge
> CL
> just to get that functionality.
>
> I read Gary’s comment as a
>>> rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons
>>> Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own project.
>>>
>>
> That would have been the common denominator.
> I strongly suspect that no one suggested because they did not want "their"
> library to depend on a "external" component. [This is all moot (to say the
> least) given that the dependency would be towards a Commons library!]
>
> From a developer POV, it does not make sense to maintain two packages
> with the exact same purpose.
>
> After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is simply
>>> too small to warrant being a project on its own.
>>>
>>
> Not a full-fledged "project", just a Commons component.
>
> How do get to that feeling? Is there a way to make a workable rule for
> creating synergies rather than use up the resources on overlapping codes?
>
> Does what is in Commons
>>> Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so,
>>> perhaps
>>> the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
>>>
>>
> One of the options which I suggested.
>
> But since people preferred to duplicate functionality rather than join
> forces
> on a common package, it is now additional work to check whether both
> packages
> provide the same value, or how they should be merged.
>
> From my Smalltalk days, I fondly recall Smalltalk's Fraction [1] being a
>> basic object like Integer, very cool. So yeah, it could happily live as a
>> first class citizen in Commons Lang AFAIC. But what I do not want to
>> decide
>> when I am coding up an app, is which Fraction to use, the one from Commons
>> Foo, Commons Bar or FooBar. I want one well maintained class I can rely
>> on.
>>
>
> And how to judge which implementation is more reliable?
> And if you arrived at a reasoned choice, why allow unsuspecting users to
> make the wrong choice?
> And if both are of equal value, why have two???
>
> Gilles
>
>
>
> [1]
>>
>>
>> https://chara.cs.illinois.edu/sites/cs528/files/arithmetic-and-double-dispatching-in-smalltalk-80.pdf
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
>>> >> One previous thread on the subject:
>>> >> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <
>>> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
>>> >
>>> > The final sentence of that thread:
>>> > "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
>>> > It stands on its own nicely IMO."
>>> >
>>> > What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
>>> > Commons component?
>>> >
>>> > [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
>>> > Yet the inertia prevailed.]
>>> >
>>> > Gilles
>>> >
>>> >> Brent
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <brent.worden@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this
>>> very
>>> >>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning
>>> for
>>> >>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives
>>> to
>>> find
>>> >>> the thread if I find time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Brent
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <
>>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>> >>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <
>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>> >>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>> >>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue
>>> using
>>> the
>>> >>>> old version if the need it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ralph
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:21:40 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers
> <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
>> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value
>> in it
>> there because Commons Math is too specialized.
He did not seem to have to depend on (a huge, specialized) CM just to
use
the fraction concept.
A standalone component fills that bill, while providing the advantage
that,
by the same argument, other developers might not wish to depend on a
huge CL
just to get that functionality.
>> I read Gary\u2019s comment as a
>> rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was \u201cfoundational\u201d for
>> Commons
>> Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own
>> project.
That would have been the common denominator.
I strongly suspect that no one suggested because they did not want
"their"
library to depend on a "external" component. [This is all moot (to say
the
least) given that the dependency would be towards a Commons library!]
From a developer POV, it does not make sense to maintain two packages
with the exact same purpose.
>> After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is
>> simply
>> too small to warrant being a project on its own.
Not a full-fledged "project", just a Commons component.
How do get to that feeling? Is there a way to make a workable rule for
creating synergies rather than use up the resources on overlapping
codes?
>> Does what is in Commons
>> Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so,
>> perhaps
>> the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
One of the options which I suggested.
But since people preferred to duplicate functionality rather than join
forces
on a common package, it is now additional work to check whether both
packages
provide the same value, or how they should be merged.
> From my Smalltalk days, I fondly recall Smalltalk's Fraction [1]
> being a
> basic object like Integer, very cool. So yeah, it could happily live
> as a
> first class citizen in Commons Lang AFAIC. But what I do not want to
> decide
> when I am coding up an app, is which Fraction to use, the one from
> Commons
> Foo, Commons Bar or FooBar. I want one well maintained class I can
> rely on.
And how to judge which implementation is more reliable?
And if you arrived at a reasoned choice, why allow unsuspecting users
to
make the wrong choice?
And if both are of equal value, why have two???
Gilles
> [1]
>
> https://chara.cs.illinois.edu/sites/cs528/files/arithmetic-and-double-dispatching-in-smalltalk-80.pdf
>
> Gary
>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
>> >> One previous thread on the subject:
>> >> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <
>> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
>> >
>> > The final sentence of that thread:
>> > "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
>> > It stands on its own nicely IMO."
>> >
>> > What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
>> > Commons component?
>> >
>> > [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
>> > Yet the inertia prevailed.]
>> >
>> > Gilles
>> >
>> >> Brent
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden
>> <br...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around
>> this very
>> >>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the
>> reasoning for
>> >>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the
>> archives to
>> find
>> >>> the thread if I find time.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Brent
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <
>> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>> >>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <
>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> >>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> >>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why wouldn\u2019t you be able to. The user would be able to continue
>> using
>> the
>> >>>> old version if the need it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
> Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted
> Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it
> there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a
> rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons
> Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own project.
>
> After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is simply
> too small to warrant being a project on its own. Does what is in Commons
> Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so, perhaps
> the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
>
From my Smalltalk days, I fondly recall Smalltalk's Fraction [1] being a
basic object like Integer, very cool. So yeah, it could happily live as a
first class citizen in Commons Lang AFAIC. But what I do not want to decide
when I am coding up an app, is which Fraction to use, the one from Commons
Foo, Commons Bar or FooBar. I want one well maintained class I can rely on.
[1]
https://chara.cs.illinois.edu/sites/cs528/files/arithmetic-and-double-dispatching-in-smalltalk-80.pdf
Gary
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
> >> One previous thread on the subject:
> >> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <
> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
> >
> > The final sentence of that thread:
> > "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
> > It stands on its own nicely IMO."
> >
> > What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
> > Commons component?
> >
> > [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
> > Yet the inertia prevailed.]
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> >> Brent
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
> >>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
> >>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to
> find
> >>> the thread if I find time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Brent
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <
> ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> >>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <
> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
> >>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
> >>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using
> the
> >>>> old version if the need it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ralph
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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 <mailto:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <mailto:
> 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: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Your reading and mine are a bit different. Stephen Colebourne wanted Fraction kept in Commons Lang as he felt users would find more value in it there because Commons Math is too specialized. I read Gary’s comment as a rebuttal to the person who said Fraction was “foundational” for Commons Math. No one ever suggested Fraction deserved to be its own project.
After looking at both Lang and Math my feeling is that Fraction is simply too small to warrant being a project on its own. Does what is in Commons Math really provide any value over what is in Commons Lang? If so, perhaps the Fraction support in Commons Lang should just be enhanced.
Ralph
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
>> One previous thread on the subject:
>> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku <http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku>
>
> The final sentence of that thread:
> "So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
> It stands on its own nicely IMO."
>
> What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
> Commons component?
>
> [And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
> Yet the inertia prevailed.]
>
> Gilles
>
>> Brent
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
>>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
>>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find
>>> the thread if I find time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>>> >
>>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using the
>>>> old version if the need it.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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 <ma...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org <ma...@commons.apache.org>
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:47 -0500, Brent Worden wrote:
> One previous thread on the subject:
> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
The final sentence of that thread:
"So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really.
It stands on its own nicely IMO."
What more adequate conclusion would be than to have a standalone
Commons component?
[And the majority of the thread participants seemed to agree.
Yet the inertia prevailed.]
Gilles
> Brent
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden
> <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this
>> very
>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning
>> for
>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives
>> to find
>> the thread if I find time.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers
>> <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles
>>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>> >
>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why wouldn\u2019t you be able to. The user would be able to continue
>>> using the
>>> old version if the need it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>.
And here is another thread from the [lang] perspective:
http://markmail.org/message/z6tgpsavegsf2rmx
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> One previous thread on the subject:
> http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
>
>
> Brent
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
>> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
>> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find
>> the thread if I find time.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>>> >
>>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using
>>> the old version if the need it.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>.
One previous thread on the subject:
http://markmail.org/message/u7lcxd6ye6qnesku
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
> topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
> keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find
> the thread if I find time.
>
>
> Brent
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <
>> jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>> >
>> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>>
>>
>> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using the
>> old version if the need it.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Brent Worden <br...@gmail.com>.
Somewhere in the mailing list archives is a discussion around this very
topic. It was quite some time ago so I do not recall the reasoning for
keeping both at that time. I will try sifting through the archives to find
the thread if I find time.
Brent
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
> >> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
> >> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
> >
> > *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
>
>
> Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using the
> old version if the need it.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>
> *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
Why wouldn’t you be able to. The user would be able to continue using the old version if the need it.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Jörg Schaible <jo...@gmx.de>.
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
>> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
>> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
>
> *Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
At least we can deprecate it now and drop it in the next major release.
- J�rg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
> "o.a.c.m.fraction"?
> Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
*Can* we drop either, while maintaining BC?
Sorry,
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
[DISCUSS] "Fraction" also in Commons Lang (Was: [VOTE] New
component: Rational numbers)
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:09:37 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> +1
>
> I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
> "fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
> ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
>
> I think this is a clean and self-contained component, and also easy
> to
> maintain for anyone.
I've just noticed that the "fraction" functionality exists in
Commons Lang (in class "o.a.c.lang3.math.Fraction").
Is it a complete overlap with what is in CM's package
"o.a.c.m.fraction"?
Should one be dropped in favour of the other?
> Can the dependencies on "Standard Maths" be reduced to simplify
> maintenance
> and deployment? (I can help with this if you agree)
I think that those dependencies are also duplicated in Commons Lang.
Some of them are trivial (e.g. the "abs" or "floor" functions for
which using "FastMath" is not going to be either more accurate or
significantly faster).
> The odd private function that happens to look the same as a function
> in
> Math* is OK
There are very few of them indeed.
Gilles
> considering the exact structure and home for "Standard Math"
> might be harder to settle (now). Similarly you will see other Commons
> components that include fragments of Commons IO, to avoid a
> dependency just
> for a single function.
>
> On 21 Jun 2016 8:32 p.m., "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>
>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>> Representation of rational numbers
>>
>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>> packages:
>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>
>>
>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>
>> Notes:
>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>> component
>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>> * API: stable.
>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>
>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>> support,
>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>
>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:09:37 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> +1
>
> I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
> "fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
> ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
>
> I think this is a clean and self-contained component, and also easy
> to
> maintain for anyone.
>
> Can the dependencies on "Standard Maths" be reduced to simplify
> maintenance
> and deployment? (I can help with this if you agree)
>
> The odd private function that happens to look the same as a function
> in
> Math* is OK considering the exact structure and home for "Standard
> Math"
> might be harder to settle (now). Similarly you will see other Commons
> components that include fragments of Commons IO, to avoid a
> dependency just
> for a single function.
Subject for discussion, for sure; but let's not rush to consider that
depending on the "AltMath" component would be a problem (cf. my other
post in reply to yours about it: it's almost like trying to avoid a
dependency towards the JDK).
Also, developers that would need the "fraction" utilities are very
probably concerned with high precision, and they might thus require
the high precision utilities anyways...
Regards,
Gilles
> On 21 Jun 2016 8:32 p.m., "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>
>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>> Representation of rational numbers
>>
>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>> packages:
>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>
>>
>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>
>> Notes:
>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>> component
>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>> * API: stable.
>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>
>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>> support,
>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>
>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
+1
I would call it org.apache.commons.fractions (non-mathematicians know
"fractions" more than "rationals", e.g. useful for those dealing with
ancient imperial measurements that occasionally crash Mars probes).
I think this is a clean and self-contained component, and also easy to
maintain for anyone.
Can the dependencies on "Standard Maths" be reduced to simplify maintenance
and deployment? (I can help with this if you agree)
The odd private function that happens to look the same as a function in
Math* is OK considering the exact structure and home for "Standard Math"
might be harder to settle (now). Similarly you will see other Commons
components that include fragments of Commons IO, to avoid a dependency just
for a single function.
On 21 Jun 2016 8:32 p.m., "Gilles" <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>
> Notes:
> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
> (cf. other VOTE thread).
> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
> * API: stable.
> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>
> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user support,
> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>
> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [Discuss][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:14:19 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> But who is "us"?
>> Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
>> at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
>> months. Or CM would have dormant already.
>>
>> I'm OK setting up the new components, with the help of those who are
>> inclined to do so (that's at least 3 other people).
>>
>> I'm just respectfully asking that people respect me (or what I did
>> here, or the fact that I'm still here), and stop blocking any and
>> all initiatives!
>
>
> I think your response here points to the exact problem. We (other
> Commons PMC members) are not trying to block any and all initiatives.
> My goals (in order) are:
>
> 1. Determine who the participants in the Commons community are. A
> community consisting of just one person isn\u2019t going to fly - either
> as
> a Commons subproject, an incubator project or a TLP. To me this is
> essential before proceeding down any path on what to do with the
> code,
> which is primarily why you feel people keep blocking you.
Feel?
The list of volunteers for maintaining the offshoots of the CM code
(both
here and in the prospective TLP) have been published several times over
the last 3 weeks, the last recap having been done by Niall Pemberton:
http://markmail.org/message/5jbun44hfwvtvqoz
To which you answered:
"This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has
been
created. 7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the
desire simply to remain a subproject of Commons?"
Well, I expressed my desire very precisely in the form of votes called
for by J�rg; and the other contributors seemed OK (overall) with the
proposals.
> 2. Once a community is established that community should collectively
> decide how to proceed - either continue as a Commons sub-project, an
> incubator project or as a TLP. Note that the TLP would require board
> approval which would almost certainly require the recommendation of
> the Commons PMC.
Again, you refuse to recognize that there is another alternative for
some of this code.
What is blocking you from accepting to create the proposed new
components?
> 3. That community should then collectively determine what to do with
> the Commons Math code base. Some of it could be offered back to
> Commons,
Offer "Commons" code to "Commons"?
I must be hallucinating.
> but that would require that Commons is interested in
> accepting it. For that I would expect the VOTE thread to identify
> who
> the individuals are that are committed to supporting the code being
> accepted, at least for a short while.
On the one hand, you don't care that CM is unsupported; on the other,
you expect that these new components have dedicated maintainers.
Is it not enough that at least 4 people expressed an interest?
Do you want them to sign a contract?
> IOW, I really feel like these vote threads are putting the cart
> before the horse. But that is just my personal opinion. As you will
> note I have not voted on any of them, so I am not trying to block
> them. But I should also note that so far not many other PMC members
> have either.
That's the problem: either you consider that they are opposed to the
idea (by not voting +1) or you consider that they do not oppose (by
not voting -1).
What is the correct interpretation?
Gilles
> Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
[Discuss][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> But who is "us"?
> Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
> at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
> months. Or CM would have dormant already.
>
> I'm OK setting up the new components, with the help of those who are
> inclined to do so (that's at least 3 other people).
>
> I'm just respectfully asking that people respect me (or what I did
> here, or the fact that I'm still here), and stop blocking any and
> all initiatives!
I think your response here points to the exact problem. We (other Commons PMC members) are not trying to block any and all initiatives. My goals (in order) are:
1. Determine who the participants in the Commons community are. A community consisting of just one person isn’t going to fly - either as a Commons subproject, an incubator project or a TLP. To me this is essential before proceeding down any path on what to do with the code, which is primarily why you feel people keep blocking you.
2. Once a community is established that community should collectively decide how to proceed - either continue as a Commons sub-project, an incubator project or as a TLP. Note that the TLP would require board approval which would almost certainly require the recommendation of the Commons PMC.
3. That community should then collectively determine what to do with the Commons Math code base. Some of it could be offered back to Commons, but that would require that Commons is interested in accepting it. For that I would expect the VOTE thread to identify who the individuals are that are committed to supporting the code being accepted, at least for a short while.
IOW, I really feel like these vote threads are putting the cart before the horse. But that is just my personal opinion. As you will note I have not voted on any of them, so I am not trying to block them. But I should also note that so far not many other PMC members have either.
Ralph
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:30:08 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles
> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
>>> maintain this component since the \u201cMath\u201d guys say they con\u2019t want
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components
>> submitted
>> to this vote (see other threads).
>> Could you please comment on why it would not be a good component?
>>
>> It's absolutely not that the "Math guys don't want it".
>> It's that it would better for everybody (developers here and there,
>> users,
>> maintainers, release managers, you name it) to have independent
>> components
>> for independent and/or core/standard and stable functionality.
>>
>> When I argued about having flexibility where needed (e.g. in
>> non-mature
>> "CM" code), the "stability" argument flag is raised to oppose it.
>>
>> When I argue about enforcing stability (by consciously choosing the
>> "Commons" home), the "maintenance" is raised even though by
>> definition
>> of "stability", this is unlikely to be an actual problem.
>>
>> Actually, the really problematic codes (those currently unsupported)
>> will
>> _all_ go to the TLP (for the PMC there to decide what to do).
>> What I propose as new components are the "easy" stuff, meaning
>> either
>> fairly easy to understand even by a newcomer, or easy to maintain
>> (lots
>> of unit tests; small, independent functions etc.).
>>
>
> This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture
> than
> before to me.
Please ask specific questions.
I can only guess, from repeatingly getting the same arguments despite
having answered them in all possible ways (and from different persons).
> You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
> TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some
> participants,
> including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this
> work.
> Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play
> out but
> another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end
> (not
> to mention a lot of busy work.)
My mileage does vary.
I've witnessed counter-production for 10 years now, boiling down to
what you say below: let's do nothing.
But who is "us"?
Right now, I'm proposing to do something together. And if you look
at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
months. Or CM would have dormant already.
I'm OK setting up the new components, with the help of those who are
inclined to do so (that's at least 3 other people).
I'm just respectfully asking that people respect me (or what I did
here, or the fact that I'm still here), and stop blocking any and
all initiatives!
> As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with
> different
> levels of expertise.
If you want to imply that CM (and _all_ its code) would have survived
this long without Luc Maisonobe, I don't agree.
Luc was its biggest asset,
And, because of that, probably one of its liabilities (yes, I was
another
undoubtedly...).
> For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise
> says to
> keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way.
Did I say that I do not want to manage a pile of cruft?
You want to keep a monolithic "Commons Math"?
How come that nobody asks how much effort it will be to maintain this
pile of ~100,000 lines of code, but one asks about the maintenance of
a tiny module of ~1,400 lines of code?
Even if no one else steps forward, I'm volunteering to maintain all 4
new components.
Because I trust that this will be _easy_, as much as I trust that CM
is unmanageable.
> Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a
> different
> matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have
> other
> Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
That's beside the point, entirely.
The "maven" modules discussion is, I agree, to be left for the TLPMC.
The proposals we discuss now have nothing to with that TLP (except
to eventually narrow its scope).
Gilles
P.S. Isn't it telling that people who oppose do not say why the code
in question would not be a good component?
E.g. why is "crypto" a good component but not those I proposed?
> Gary
>
>
>> Having those as components will accelerate the opportunity for wider
>> adoption (code is "production"-ready, modulo rather trivial
>> adjustments
>> to their new status), rather than having them wait until the TLP is
>> on
>> track.
>>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>>> <jo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -0
>>>>
>>>> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first,
>>>> so
>>>> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
>>>> won't stop you from doin that.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles
>>>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons
>>>>> components
>>>>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math"
>>>>> component.
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>>>>> Representation of rational numbers
>>>>>
>>>>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>>>>> packages:
>>>>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>>>>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes:
>>>>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>>>>> component
>>>>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>>>>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>>>>> * API: stable.
>>>>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>>>>
>>>>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the
>>>>> candidate
>>>>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>>>>> support,
>>>>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>>>>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gilles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
>> maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
>>
>
> I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components submitted
> to this vote (see other threads).
> Could you please comment on why it would not be a good component?
>
> It's absolutely not that the "Math guys don't want it".
> It's that it would better for everybody (developers here and there, users,
> maintainers, release managers, you name it) to have independent components
> for independent and/or core/standard and stable functionality.
>
> When I argued about having flexibility where needed (e.g. in non-mature
> "CM" code), the "stability" argument flag is raised to oppose it.
>
> When I argue about enforcing stability (by consciously choosing the
> "Commons" home), the "maintenance" is raised even though by definition
> of "stability", this is unlikely to be an actual problem.
>
> Actually, the really problematic codes (those currently unsupported) will
> _all_ go to the TLP (for the PMC there to decide what to do).
> What I propose as new components are the "easy" stuff, meaning either
> fairly easy to understand even by a newcomer, or easy to maintain (lots
> of unit tests; small, independent functions etc.).
>
This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture than
before to me.
You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some participants,
including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this work.
Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play out but
another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end (not
to mention a lot of busy work.)
As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with different
levels of expertise.
For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise says to
keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way.
Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a different
matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have other
Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
Gary
> Having those as components will accelerate the opportunity for wider
> adoption (code is "production"-ready, modulo rather trivial adjustments
> to their new status), rather than having them wait until the TLP is on
> track.
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
> Ralph
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> -0
>>>
>>> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
>>> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
>>> won't stop you from doin that.)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>>>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>>>
>>>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>>>> Representation of rational numbers
>>>>
>>>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>>>> packages:
>>>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>>>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>>>
>>>> Notes:
>>>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
>>>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>>>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>>>> * API: stable.
>>>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>>>
>>>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>>>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>>>> support,
>>>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>>>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
>
--
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: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 06:35:43 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will
> maintain this component since the \u201cMath\u201d guys say they con\u2019t want it.
I gave concrete (positive) arguments for having the components
submitted
to this vote (see other threads).
Could you please comment on why it would not be a good component?
It's absolutely not that the "Math guys don't want it".
It's that it would better for everybody (developers here and there,
users,
maintainers, release managers, you name it) to have independent
components
for independent and/or core/standard and stable functionality.
When I argued about having flexibility where needed (e.g. in non-mature
"CM" code), the "stability" argument flag is raised to oppose it.
When I argue about enforcing stability (by consciously choosing the
"Commons" home), the "maintenance" is raised even though by definition
of "stability", this is unlikely to be an actual problem.
Actually, the really problematic codes (those currently unsupported)
will
_all_ go to the TLP (for the PMC there to decide what to do).
What I propose as new components are the "easy" stuff, meaning either
fairly easy to understand even by a newcomer, or easy to maintain (lots
of unit tests; small, independent functions etc.).
Having those as components will accelerate the opportunity for wider
adoption (code is "production"-ready, modulo rather trivial adjustments
to their new status), rather than having them wait until the TLP is on
track.
Gilles
> Ralph
>
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> -0
>>
>> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first,
>> so
>> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
>> won't stop you from doin that.)
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles
>> <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons
>>> components
>>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>>
>>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>>> Representation of rational numbers
>>>
>>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>>> packages:
>>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>>> component
>>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>>> * API: stable.
>>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>>
>>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the
>>> candidate
>>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>>> support,
>>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>>
>>
>> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I agree with Benedikt. Plus, I have no idea who in Commons will maintain this component since the “Math” guys say they con’t want it.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
> won't stop you from doin that.)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>
>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>> Representation of rational numbers
>>
>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>
>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>
>> Notes:
>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>> * API: stable.
>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>
>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user support,
>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>
>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Eric Barnhill <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 this seems like a useful and self-contained functionality that is not in
the Java API
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
> won't stop you from doin that.)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> > out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
> >
> > This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> > Representation of rational numbers
> >
> > The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> > org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
> > located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
> >
> >
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
> >
> > Notes:
> > * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
> > (cf. other VOTE thread).
> > * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
> > * API: stable.
> > * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
> >
> > All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
> > component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
> support,
> > bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
> >
> > [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
> > [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I agree with Jochen. What to do with the Math stuff should be decided after the organizational things are done.
Ralph
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -0
>
> (I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
> that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
> won't stop you from doin that.)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>
>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>> Representation of rational numbers
>>
>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>
>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>
>> Notes:
>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>> * API: stable.
>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>
>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user support,
>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>
>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
-0
(I keep insisting, that we finish the organizational things first, so
that CM can take such decisions without involving others. OTOH, I
won't stop you from doin that.)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>
> Notes:
> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions" component
> (cf. other VOTE thread).
> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
> * API: stable.
> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>
> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user support,
> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>
> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
> [ ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Emmanuel Bourg <eb...@apache.org>.
Le 21/06/2016 � 21:32, Gilles a �crit :
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
-0, I expect this to remain in the core math package.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Rob Tompkins <ch...@gmail.com>.
+1 [As contributor, not committer]
> On Jul 1, 2016, at 9:42 AM, Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Benedikt.
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:43:08 +0000, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
>> 21:32 Uhr:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>>
>>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>>> Representation of rational numbers
>>>
>>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>>> packages:
>>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>>> component
>>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>>> * API: stable.
>>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>>
>>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>>> support,
>>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>>> [ x ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>>
>>
>> Feels to much like a math component to me. Could better live in a Math TLP.
>
> Since there is a similar functionality in Commons Lang, I would
> think that we'd either consider that it is common enough or that
> you think that it should be removed from Commons Lang.
>
> Do you strongly oppose that Rob Tompkins tries to rationalize the
> implementations?
> [I assume that the goal would be to either have a new component
> (and deprecate the functionality in CL) or to validate and enhance
> the functionality in CL (ensuring that it is at least as complete,
> as accurate and as fast as the version in CM).]
>
> As various people noted in the past months and weeks, it would not
> be nice to a new contributor to let him work and then not integrate
> it on the basis that this goal was not a consensus.
>
> Thanks for reconsidering,
> 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: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org>.
Hi Benedikt.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:43:08 +0000, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016
> um
> 21:32 Uhr:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
>> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>>
>> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
>> Representation of rational numbers
>>
>> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
>> packages:
>> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
>> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>>
>> Notes:
>> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
>> component
>> (cf. other VOTE thread).
>> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
>> * API: stable.
>> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>>
>> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
>> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
>> support,
>> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>>
>> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
>> [ x ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>>
>
> Feels to much like a math component to me. Could better live in a
> Math TLP.
Since there is a similar functionality in Commons Lang, I would
think that we'd either consider that it is common enough or that
you think that it should be removed from Commons Lang.
Do you strongly oppose that Rob Tompkins tries to rationalize the
implementations?
[I assume that the goal would be to either have a new component
(and deprecate the functionality in CL) or to validate and enhance
the functionality in CL (ensuring that it is at least as complete,
as accurate and as fast as the version in CM).]
As various people noted in the past months and weeks, it would not
be nice to a new contributor to let him work and then not integrate
it on the basis that this goal was not a consensus.
Thanks for reconsidering,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
Gilles <gi...@harfang.homelinux.org> schrieb am Di., 21. Juni 2016 um
21:32 Uhr:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Representation of rational numbers
>
> The concerned code is the contents of the following classes and
> packages:
> org.apache.commons.math4.fraction
> located in the "develop" branch of Commons Math:
>
>
> https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-math.git;a=tree;f=src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math4/fraction;h=446df46270ea0d00b7b23b603ca153df9ec18ffa;hb=refs/heads/develop
>
> Notes:
> * This component will depend on the "Standard math functions"
> component
> (cf. other VOTE thread).
> * Code size: ~1400 lines of code (unit tests not included).
> * API: stable.
> * Estimated minimum Java version: 5 (?)
>
> All are welcome to vote, especially potential users of the candidate
> component and people who'd like to contribute to it, through user
> support,
> bug-fixes and enhancements, documentation, release management.
>
> [ ] +1, this would be a valid Commons component.
> [ x ] -1, this won't be a good Commons component because ...
>
Feels to much like a math component to me. Could better live in a Math TLP.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>