I am NOT, I repeat, NOT knowledgeable at all about existing
implementations of maths algorithms (or algorithms in most other domains,
for that matter). Nor am I a lawyer. I'm just a developer w/ a certain
degree (how small a degree is not certain) of understanding of copyright
and software lice
The patch came w/ a mod to the example which demonstrates it working, and
after the patch all existing tests passed (there have been several
modifications to the Validator tree in Jakarta CVS since the patch, I
haven't syched and run the tests again -- I cannot for the life of me
imagine it bre
>From "Java theory and practice: Urban performance legends"
(http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp04223.html?ca=dnt-416):
"First of all, microbenchmarks rarely measure what you think they're
measuring. In the presence of dynamic compilation, you have no idea what
bytecode the JVM
--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The dodgy bit is that someone
> else who did the same
> derivation and ended up with a similar
> implementation (e.g. NR) might
> claim
> ownership of the algorithm itself. This is why the
> limitation expressed
> in the
> NR copyright statement is
Can do, though perhaps http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches
should be updated to reflect that.
Dave
"David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
05/27/2003 01:04 PM
Please respond to "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:
OK, let's try the inline approach; patch follows:
Index:
validator/src/example/org/apache/commons/validator/example/ValidateExample.java
===
RCS file:
/home/cvspublic/jakarta-commons/validator/src/example/org/apache/commons/validato
Hi all (special shout out to Alex Chaffee!),
Here's a patch we have applied to our
local tree to allow filtering out success results (is there a use case
for knowing that your input *did* pass validation rules that wouldn't be
better handled by trace debugging? No new is good news...)
AFAICT, it
> "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires
> >a fee and/or specific permission.
> >
> Basically what this is saying is "talk to us". ACM
> is suggesting
> involvement and acknowledgment of their efforts in
> organizing and
> archiving these a
