On 12 Nov 2003, at 12:30, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 06:51 PM, robert burrell donkin
wrote:
On 11 Nov 2003, at 12:47, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
2) I have a feeling that no one would utter a peep if someone did
some GUI extensions to a project here at Jakarta. W
I'd say that the discussed scope, at least some visions of it, make it
more appropriate for a top level project than apache-commons, but I'll
second Henri's advice to cut a 1.0 release from jakarta-commons and draft
up a scope/vision document, then make the choice based upon what
feels right at the
On 11 Nov 2003, at 11:31, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 05:39 PM, Tim O'Brien wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 14:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
so - is there a positive alternative? i'd like to propose that
common-maths continues to be affiliated with jakarta-commons b
On 11 Nov 2003, at 12:47, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 05:41 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
a move to apache commons would allow this progression to happen much
more easily.
Why?
the rules which apply here in the jakarta-commons about components
and distribution
On 11 Nov 2003, at 12:38, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 10:52 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Regarding separate DEV list -- as I said in my earlier comments,
that's totally
up to the MATH developers if they want it or not. The fact that it
might make
my life easier
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
... There is significant number of us with an interest in seeing
> numerically sound implementations of various aspects of mathematics
> in java... Suffice it to say that java
implementations do provide an elegant means to explore ideal Design
Patterns for Mathematical pack
I do agree with much of what you say, but (2) There is significant
number of us with an interest in seeing numerically sound
implementations of various aspects of mathematics in java (no matter how
wonderfully fast F77 implementations may be, Fortran will never be Java,
nor would one want it to
my 2cents
(1) I think it would be best to get a 1.0 release of commons-math as a
jakarta-commons subproject before any movement (the good-old KISS acronym
comes to mind)
(2) I am not sure to what extent math may get developed, as was stated
in a different thread previously Java is not the
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
Most Commons projects have arisen from either top level apache projects,
xml apache projects or jakarta apache projects. As such they are
You'd be surprised that this isn't as common as you think :) Many came out
of a junky 'uti
On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 05:41 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
a move to apache commons would allow this progression to happen much
more easily.
Why?
the rules which apply here in the jakarta-commons about components
and distributions would make things difficult. within a math group in
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 10:52 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Regarding separate DEV list -- as I said in my earlier comments,
that's totally
up to the MATH developers if they want it or not. The fact that it
might make
my life easier certainly isn't binding. Note also that the httpclie
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 05:35 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 9 Nov 2003, at 22:07, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
2.) How will we relate to Jakarta Commons? certainly we may have
dependencies on parts of the commons, but doesn't this leave little
room for jakarta commons components to uti
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 05:39 PM, Tim O'Brien wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 14:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
so - is there a positive alternative? i'd like to propose that
common-maths continues to be affiliated with jakarta-commons but
becomes managed by apache commons.
+1, I think tha
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> Most Commons projects have arisen from either top level apache projects,
> xml apache projects or jakarta apache projects. As such they are
You'd be surprised that this isn't as common as you think :) Many came out
of a junky 'util' project. Struts
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Tim O'Brien wrote:
so - is there a positive alternative? i'd like to propose that
common-maths continues to be affiliated with jakarta-commons but
becomes managed by apache commons.
+1, I think that now is the right time to move commons math to
Apache Commons.
As lon
Quoting Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > On 9 Nov 2003, at 22:07, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> >
> > > 1.) Plausible, I understand though that Apache Commons is under
> > > subversion, will this be a challenge to migrate to?
> >
> > sub
Henri Yandell wrote:
2.) How will we relate to Jakarta Commons? certainly we may have
dependencies on parts of the commons, but doesn't this leave little
room for jakarta commons components to utilize math as a dependency as
they are generally expected to be dependent on only other jakarta
commons
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2003, at 22:07, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
>
> > 1.) Plausible, I understand though that Apache Commons is under
> > subversion, will this be a challenge to migrate to?
>
> subversion is (by all accounts) very, very cool. everyone here at
>
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> commons-maths will still be part of jakarta-commons :)
>
> it'll only be managed by the apache-commons pmc.
Which will make it in no way a "part" of jakarta-commons. "Related to" or
"linked from" perhaps, but not strictly "a part of" in any mean
On 9 Nov 2003, at 22:07, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
Darn it, I just got done making all those little edits to hrefs and
the bugzilla! ;-)
not a problem. they'll do just fine as they are :)
there's not reason why users should be bothered by the change (see
below).
1.) Plausible, I understand though
Darn it, I just got done making all those little edits to hrefs and the
bugzilla! ;-)
1.) Plausible, I understand though that Apache Commons is under
subversion, will this be a challenge to migrate to?
2.) How will we relate to Jakarta Commons? certainly we may have
dependencies on parts of th
On Sun, 2003-11-09 at 14:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> so - is there a positive alternative? i'd like to propose that
> common-maths continues to be affiliated with jakarta-commons but
> becomes managed by apache commons.
>
+1, I think that now is the right time to move commons math to
Ap
22 matches
Mail list logo
