Henri Yandell wrote:
The problem with Apache Math is that it's a big leap to take. Mark needs
to build community before he should really try to guide [math] to that
point.
I agree
That's why I'm +0. The hope that a commons-math-user list would help the
community to be built. I do think it's unnecessary under our usual reasons
for a separate mail list, but we also all seem to agree that Apache Math
as a long term end-goal is not out of the question trying to foster a
separate mail list would help Mark guide it there.
I'd also suggest that 3 months after creating it, Mark would have to
justify the creation by showing that community has begun to grow.
I think math could accept such an agreement. What would be a
justification, "list activity" above a certain threshold?
Of course, there is the time honoured method. Start up an external mail
list to prove that the community may be built :) jmath.yahoo.com or
something.
Seems it would be difficult to keep everything focused around apache in
such a case.
Hen
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I would suggest that your argument is more for Apache Math than for a new
mailing list. (Note Apache Math, not Jakarta Math)
For me, [math] goes beyond the role of a simple library of common code.
Instead it presents a wealth of detailed mathematical code. The user of the
library needs some mathematical knowledge to get the best from the library.
Related to this is that the developers and advisors will be drawn from a
different (less java/programmer centric position).
Secondly, there is no reason why [math] could not be implemented in C, C# or
another language as far as I can see. (There is no general rule here, [lang]
and [collections] are java focussed, but [codec] could be multi-language.
One option that could be considered in to use the package name
org.apache.math for your 1.0 release even if you are still hosted in
commons. It avoids problems later.
So, consider me -0 to a commons-math-user at the moment.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Do you get my argument though?
I'm suggesting that creating the new list will help promote maths
'non-developer' user base who are interested in algorithms and stability
(not because the load is too high). Individuals who are not interested
in usage of other commons components per se. Individuals like Kim or
David (or anyone from the jama or colt lists), who may not necessarily
be developing Apache code, but could supply excellent discussion on the
subject area. It would really help to promote the project and attract a
many individuals who are knowledgeable in the field of mathematics, thus
offering expert feedback to help improve the product. A math library is
a much different beast than a collections api, discovery or bean
utilities; certain standards are expected. I want a list where such
things can be discussed without risking being bothersome to the commons
developer/user lists with overly abstract discussion on mathematics and
not overwhelming such math users with discussion from other commons
sub-groups.
I think providing a user friendly environment is important here, and
someone barking "use a filter stupid, its not our fault" is really not
very user friendly, ASF has the facilities and can do better.
-Mark
--
Mark R. Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
