----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [math] Re: commons-math, matrix-toolkits-java and consolidation
Sam Halliday wrote:
Bill, I strongly discourage adding these methods at this time. We will
regret
it.
If you don't want to change (i.e. add new methods) to an interface, then
the
sensible thing is to omit these interfaces for 2.0 and introduce them
with
2.1.
+1. Unless we are either a) agreed on contents of non-marker interfaces
or b) willing to leave (until 3.0) markers empty, we should omit them. We
cannot introduce incompatible changes in point releases.
I have a slight preference for leaving the markers empty until 3.0, but I
can remove them as well. But I can wait to see what the community consensus
is before making changes.
Phil
Bill Barker wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
