Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how would that work for client implementations? And everywhere in sight inside of the linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatrix, so you'd have to cast to concrete implementation to get access to these new metho

Fwd: svn commit: r825420 - in /commons/proper/lang/trunk/src: java/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtils.java test/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtilsTest.java

--- Weitergeleitete Nachricht (Anfang) Betreff: svn commit: r825420 - in /commons/proper/lang/trunk/src: java/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtils.java test/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtilsTest.java Absender: bayard-1odqgaof3lkdnm+yrof...@public.gmane.org Datum: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

- "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how > would > > that work for client implementations? And everywhere in sight inside > of the > > linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatrix, so > you'd > have to cast to concr

Re: svn commit: r825151 - /commons/proper/collections/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/collections/functors/NOPClosure.java

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 19:56, sebb wrote: > Why not just remove the equals() and hashCode() methods? > The defaults are just as good. It is not the same because multiple instances of NOPClosure can exist. This is because of serialization support. By implementing readResolve() method which will

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-configuration-test (in module apache-commons) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-configuration-test has an issue affecting its community integrati

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-xmlunit (in module commons-jelly) success, but with warnings.

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jelly-tags-xmlunit contains errors. The current state of this proj

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) success, but with warnings.

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme contains errors. The current state of this projec

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, wrote: > > - "Jake Mannix" a écrit : > > You are both right. > I was mainly refering to removing methods as this affects not only > implementations but mainly user code. > Adding new methods to interfaces is an incompatible change in the sens that > existing

[g...@vmgump]: Project commons-jelly-tags-fmt-test (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org. Project commons-jelly-tags-fmt-test has an issue affecting its community integrat

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, wrote: > we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if > someone did really create a class that implements RealVector, he would > simply have to say it extends AbstractRealVector instead. So there is a > clear gain to accept this kind of i

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of > these mapXXX methods? > I don't know about outside, but in my first test patch which removed these methods completely, the only ones which were used outside of unit

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Jake Mannix a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > >> What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of >> these mapXXX methods? >> > > I don't know about outside, but in my first test patch which removed these > methods > completely, the only on

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

Jake Mannix a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > >> When this topic was discussed previously, Sam asked to someone called >> Bjorn-Ove and the reply was positive, see >> . >> >> > Ok, so reading this thread left it at th

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

I didn't get the impression that f2j was active at all, either. Weren't there other options for MTJ to get performance or had they limited their scope to f2j produced libraries and decided to ignore Atlas? On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > f2j is distributed under a modifi

Re: svn commit: r825420 - in /commons/proper/lang/trunk/src: java/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtils.java test/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtilsTest.java

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:34 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > > --- Weitergeleitete Nachricht (Anfang) > > Betreff: svn commit: r825420 - in /commons/proper/lang/trunk/src: > java/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtils.java > test/org/apache/commons/lang/ClassUtilsTest.java > Absender: bayard-1o

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-exec-1.0.1 based on RC5

Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > after many failures (and a lot of help) I have now the RC for > commons-exec ready - the focus is to get a patch for the Exec Maven > Plugin out of the door ... :-) > > Tag: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/exec/tags/EXEC_1_0_1_RC5/ >

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

- Original Message - From: "Ted Dunning" To: "Commons Developers List" Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [math] Questions about the linear package On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, wrote: we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if

Re: [math] Questions about the linear package

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Bill Barker wrote: > > I'm +1 on this (including being willing to help). Like Luc, I don't > believe that there are very many people implementing custom versons of these > interfaces. > Ok great, I feel a consensus building here, so I'm going to write up a JIRA t