On 5/14/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that modulo some cleanup, testing and review and the one
> dangling item below, we should be ready for a [math] release.
I first wanted to introduce SVD but now think I need to work more on this. This
would delay a release for quite long. I therefore agree with you and propose to
delay SVD to next release.
Sorry I forgot about that item. Agree we can hold until next release.
> I will
> RM if no one else wants to, but would appreciate it (and support by
> sharing gruntwork) if someone else volunteers.
I would be happy to help. However I never followed the release process before,
so it may be to early for this one. Regardless of who manages the release, I
will add the public subkey I have set up for releases signing in the KEYS file.
Sounds like we have a victi...er I mean, "volunteer". If you are
willing to play the RM role, I will help both with execution and also
update the "releasing" docs to m2. The first step, assuming you are up
for it, is to create a release plan on the Wiki. Don't worry about
getting everything right on the first cut, we can discuss and update
before finalizing. You can start by editing the now obsolete plan
here:
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/math/1%2e2ReleasePlan
> 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.
I also think we should use 2.0 as the release number. There are some API changes
as some methods have been deprecated. I also wonder if it would'nt be safer to
change some unchecked exceptions to checked exceptions. An example for this is
the solve method for UnivariateRealSover. Solvers may throw an
IllegalArgumentException when the provided interval doesn't bracket the root for
example. This is explained in javadoc but I would prefer to enforce it by
replacing this by something like SearchIntervalException or even a broad
SolverException. Of course, this would be break compatibility (but user code
would be easy to fix).
We have had lots of discussion over the years on checked vs unchecked
exceptions (vs returning NaN) in [math]. The original discussion is
in this thread
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg20502.html
and we have talked about the issue several times since, always trying
to find the right balance between "cluttering user code" with catch
blocks vs throwing unexpected RTEs and also being consistent with
java.Math and as much as possible IEEE 745.
I am fine with revisiting the decisions made and improving the overall
exception hierarchy and management as we have started to do in trunk.
I would prefer to find a way to do this via deprecation / replacement,
though, so as not to immediately break existing client code.
Could be the best strategy is to push out a 1.2 release with
deprecations and remove the deprecated classes / methods in 2.0. See
below for more on this.
> 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 .
Adding setters seems a bit strange to me. I thought either we use
abstract/concrete factories and let the user provide his own factories by
extending the default one overriding only the factory method he need, or we use
only one concrete factory and setters in the spirit of IOC. Providing both at
the same time is confusing. I personally prefer the IOC way but once again this
would be an incompatible change (this one is more difficult to fix in user code,
but I'm not sure many people used this feature).
I agree. So, probably best is to deprecate the current abstract
factories and move to single concrete factories with impl setters for
IOC support. The concrete factories exist already, so it may just be
a matter of deprecation and possibly renaming some things. Here
again, we could deprecate in 1.2, remove in 2.0. Lets step back and
reexamine the overall setup and introduce a better approach. All ideas
/ suggestions welcome. Consistency is important, though, so whatever
we decide on, lets be consistent in distributions, solvers, etc.
In terms of release number, I guess I am back to seeing 1.2 as
desirable, since it gives us the opportunity to do the deprecations
and provides a bridge for current users who want the new functionality
but depend on old APIs.
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
