I propose option 1 and 2 since it took us a lot of efforts to bring MXNet to
Scala originally and there are already adopters of Scala API in industries
(some may not have been disclosed yet). But I am open to other options. Not
familiar with DJL though but I assume @frankfliu and @lanking520
I would propose Option 3. and 4. Will add more comments here to explain why
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-595923396
> @lanking520 @zachgk @terrytangyuan @aaronmarkham could one of you start a
> discussion in a new issue on the JVM ecosystem support in 2.0? This topic
> seems to require extended discussion.
I created one here https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783
--
You are receiving this
Since MXNet 2.0 development starts. I would like to initiate a discussion for
the future development of JVM languages.
## Proposal
- Start cleaning on the existing APIs to adapt to 2.0
- Start from ground up to rewrite the whole Scala/Java APIs
- Start using DJL (djl.ai) as a frontend for MXnet
@lanking520 @zachgk @terrytangyuan @aaronmarkham could one of you start a
discussion in a new issue on the JVM ecosystem support in 2.0? This topic seems
to require extended discussion.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it
Good question. I don't know. There wasn't a new release then. 路♀
--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17676#issuecomment-595885111
> Thanks @zachgk - I took a couple of screenshots so I could share here
>
> Here is the Scala package
> 
>
> and here is the Clojure package
>
I vote for "upgrade/rewrite Scala API and bring up MXNet 2.0 features" as
it took us a lot of efforts to bring MXNet to Scala originally and there
are already adopters of Scala API in industries.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:02 AM Wang Jiajun
wrote:
> > We may also drop ONNX in MXNet 2. I'm not
+1 for "upgrade/rewrite Scala API and bring up MXNet 2.0 features" as it took
us a lot of efforts to bring MXNet to Scala originally and there are already
adopters of Scala API in industries.
--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
I vote for "upgrade/rewrite Scala API and bring up MXNet 2.0 features" as
it took us a lot of efforts to bring MXNet to Scala originally and there
are already adopters of Scala API in industries.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 11:02 AM Wang Jiajun
wrote:
> > We may also drop ONNX in MXNet 2. I'm not
> We may also drop ONNX in MXNet 2. I'm not aware of anyone working on ONNX in
> MXNet and TVM can be used as a replacement.
+1 for keeping ONNX support. Although it has a lot of small problems, but I've
converted a lot of pytorch models to mxnet for deploying with the following
pipeline:
Thanks @zachgk - I took a couple of screenshots so I could share here
Here is the Scala package
and here is the Clojure package
12 matches
Mail list logo
