Phil Steitz wrote:
On 3/11/06, Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would fear of a library providing such functionality be enormous...
any modularity in commons-math planned ?
Good question, which comes up over and over again in [math]. That's
why I suggested that we focus on primality testing, which is something
with practical applications and that could define a more narrow scope.
I don't see any harm in experimenting a little in this area.
I think indeed this would be good as first stab.
[...] When you say "modularity" do you mean splitting up the jar artifacts
produced? I thnk we have talked about that before and could be it will make sense
eventually to do this. Do you think the 1.1 jar is too big?
Right, it was about it...
It could also be about dependencies and/or scopes of each projects.
For example for Jelly it was *needed* because, for example, some taglibs
have picky dependencies. I don't think it's the case here.
The current commons-math is quite small thus far... indeed... So it'd be
just a long term suggestion.
paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
