I think that modulo some cleanup, testing and review and the one dangling item below, we should be ready for a [math] release. I will RM if no one else wants to, but would appreciate it (and support by sharing gruntwork) if someone else volunteers. Here are some questions to resolve in the release plan:
1. Is this 1.2 or 2.0? There is so much in the added Mantissa classes that 2.0 makes sense from a functionality standpoint. On the other hand, we have not broken backward compatibility with anything (yet) and if we decide to go 2.0, we could consider some API change. My vote is to keep compatibility in place, but still name it 2.0. 2. What if anything should we add to make "pluggability" as designed in the library compatible with IOC frameworks? It won't work to add setters for the main factories, since we use the static getInstance factory pattern (see e.g. UnivariateRealSoverFactory). What might make more sense would be to add setters for the individual solvers in e.g. UnivariateRealSoverFactoryImpl. Any ideas on how best to attack this? For those not familiar with [math] who may have ideas, the basic setup is that we use abstract factories with static getInstance methods that return concrete factories looked up using commons-discovery. The concrete factories themselves source multiple different object types . Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
