----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Halliday" <sam.halli...@gmail.com>
To: <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation
Excellent :-)
I think the consensus is to keep the sparse interfaces empty for now...
don't want to lock ourselves into anything without detailed discussion,
which there is no time for before 2.0.
Just drop a note into the Javadocs to the effect that methods may be added
in the next release. I can't see users extending these interfaces in 2.0,
because they are not even going to be used internally.
What I actually went for is to add getSparcity to the SparseRealVector
interface (should be easy to calculate in one dimension, and mostly useful
for DEBUG level logging, so stubbing it shouldn't be a problem if not), and
getShape for the SparseRealMatrix interface that returns an enum that
currently only has the value of 'Any'.
I really don't like the idea of changing the API between minor releases, so
put in place-holders for what seems to be the consensus for going forward.
Bill Barker wrote:
I'm +1 on these grounds (and, yes, that means I'm volunteering to do the
work). I could add the getSparcity method as well (the only one that is
useful for 2.0). Could do the getShape which would presumably return an
enum (which would only have one element in 2.0) to ease the pain of
upgrading to 2.1 when there are more.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/commons-math%2C-matrix-toolkits-java-and-consolidation-tp23537813p23595640.html
Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
