Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-18 Thread Mark R. Diggory
lass() }); m.invoke(null, new Object[] { realClassArgs }); } -Original Message- From: Tomasz Pik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:03 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries Mark R. Diggory wrote

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-18 Thread John Keyes
); } -Original Message- From: Tomasz Pik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:03 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries Mark R. Diggory wrote: I know there were a means to setup logging for debugging wi

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-17 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Paul Libbrecht wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: Paul Libbrecht wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: I removed instances of this Logging entry in an earlier commit. I think awhile back there was allot of discussion about if this should throw an exception or return NaN. The origin of this exception i

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-17 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Mark R. Diggory wrote: Paul Libbrecht wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: I removed instances of this Logging entry in an earlier commit. I think awhile back there was allot of discussion about if this should throw an exception or return NaN. The origin of this exception is a Convergence Exception

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-17 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Paul Libbrecht wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: I removed instances of this Logging entry in an earlier commit. I think awhile back there was allot of discussion about if this should throw an exception or return NaN. The origin of this exception is a Convergence Exception in ContinuedFraction. T

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-17 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Mark R. Diggory wrote: I removed instances of this Logging entry in an earlier commit. I think awhile back there was allot of discussion about if this should throw an exception or return NaN. The origin of this exception is a Convergence Exception in ContinuedFraction. The big question is the sa

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-17 Thread Mark R. Diggory
J.Pietschmann wrote: Paul Libbrecht wrote: a.) logging: I don't really agree here. I do think it is very useful for any system to be able to raise a logging verbosity at any-time so that bugs and misunderstandings can be tracked. It depends on the complexity of the stuff potentially being p

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-16 Thread Paul Libbrecht
Al Chou wrote: a.) logging: It sounds like a good idea to make logging a runtime/compile time dependency on only the test cases and not the main +1 I don't really agree here. I do think it is very useful for any system to be able to raise a logging verbosity at any-time so that bugs and misun

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-16 Thread Al Chou
--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm trying organize this thread a little bit more than was accomplished > in the discussion. Thanks, Mark. Good job. > 1.) Argument exists concerning the dependency requirements of Commons > Math. To in fact be "modular" and "easily integrate

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-08 Thread Matt Cliff
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > > Hmm, not to be critical, but 5.1 is almost at the end of its product > lifecycle. Weblogic has had several releases since 5.1 that solve many > of these issues do they not? I say this mostly to "identify" that there > is a limitation as to how far ba

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Phil Steitz wrote: I agree with your assessment of that platform; but your comment raises an interesting question: to what extent should commons component design decisions be influenced by characteristics of the user base. My opinion is "lots." "Lame and broken" as it may be, WebLogic 5 on N

[OT] Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread David Graham
--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Graham wrote: > > --- Charles Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>Mark wrote: > >>> > Eric Pugh wrote: > This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of > >>> > >>places. > >> > However, I think it is a bit

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Phil Steitz
David Graham wrote: --- Charles Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mark wrote: Eric Pugh wrote: This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of places. However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server environment, I understand the problem, but in a ser

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Charles Hudak wrote: Mark wrote: Eric Pugh wrote: This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of places. However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with lots of harddrive space,

[OT] Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Tomasz Pik
Sorry for a little offtopic post. Charles Hudak wrote: I think that this comment is a little shortsighted. We are still using weblogic 5.1 and constantly have problems with the multitude of third party libraries that we are using. WL 5.1 does not seem to find libraries in the WEB-INF/lib director

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread David Graham
--- Charles Hudak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Mark wrote: > >> Eric Pugh wrote: > >> This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of > places. > >> However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non > server > >> environment, I understand the problem, but in a s

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Charles Hudak
>Mark wrote: >> Eric Pugh wrote: >> This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of places. >> However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server >> environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with lots >> of harddrive space, I don't.

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
I'm trying organize this thread a little bit more than was accomplished in the discussion. 1.) Argument exists concerning the dependency requirements of Commons Math. To in fact be "modular" and "easily integrated" some discrepancy arises concerning interdependency with other commons components

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Danny Angus
FWIW the math proposal actually says: "Emphasis on small, easily integrated components rather than large libraries with c

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Todd V. Jonker
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 06:54:14 -0800 (PST), "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Agreed, especially because Jakarta's mission is to create *server* > side libraries. [...] > The need to support 1.3 is diminishing over time. Java 1.4 is > available and runs well on all the major platforms I ca

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
ble components. Suns Logging should have been a logically separate component that one should be able to add onto 1.3.1 -Original Message- From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 06:54 To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [Math] common-

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Gary Gregory
ROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 06:27 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries > > I, for one, like the idea of commons projects depending on each other > when necessary. There is always a lot of controversy wi

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Gary Gregory
.3. I should not be forced to do that. Gary > -Original Message- > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 06:54 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries > > >

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
David Graham wrote: In this case, it looks like commons-lang and commons-logging are only needed because math doesn't use Java 1.4 as the base level. Moving to Java 1.4 has the advantage of providing exception chaining and logging in the Java core and eliminates 2 jars. Obviously, the disadvant

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread David Graham
--- Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of > places. > However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server > environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with > lots > of harddrive space,

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Brian McCallister wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 09:26 AM, __matthewHawthorne wrote: Why does a math module depend on a logging module for deployment? Have the unit tests log, not the math functions. =) > -Brian Bright Idea...I hadn't really thought about that. :-) -- Mark Diggo

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Hehehe, thats a novel idea. Ok to be devils advocate... Your coming at this from "one jar" perspective. Which leads me to wonder why having math be "one jar" is important to you? Can you please elaborate on this? And to the rest of the community I postulate: Is this a critical usage case? The

RE: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Eric Pugh
This backlash against multiple commons jars is happening in a lot of places. However, I think it is a bit shortsighted. If you are in a non server environment, I understand the problem, but in a server environment with lots of harddrive space, I don't. Additionally, since in a server app you are

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread Brian McCallister
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 09:26 AM, __matthewHawthorne wrote: I, for one, like the idea of commons projects depending on each other when necessary. There is always a lot of controversy with regards to "including another jar" that I don't quite understand. I agree that if there are on

Re: [Math] common-math and bloated 3rd party libraries

2003-11-05 Thread __matthewHawthorne
I, for one, like the idea of commons projects depending on each other when necessary. There is always a lot of controversy with regards to "including another jar" that I don't quite understand. I agree that if there are only 1 or 2 references, it may be reasonable to include the dependencies