Hi. > > I also think it is a good idea, but with the addition of thinking > > parallelisation into the framework (e.g. in the map functionality). > > Whether it should be done in a branch or not, I don't know, but I guess > > the people who do know will reply on that :-). > > I would very much like to have a simplified API.
+1 > I also would vevery very much like to see 3.0 released, +1 > so if we are > gonna doing some API change here, we should really go forward and do it > fast. [...] +1 Is there some actual proposal for the simple API? Maybe we could start from a basic structure, that contains the minimum number of features (TBD); something that would not hurt implementations like the efficient 3-dimensional matrices talked about some time ago. Then maybe that more featureful matrix classes could specify additional functionalities through the implementations of "interface"s, like "IsVisitable". Then we could retrofit the currently exisiting matrix classes by just adding the appropriate "implements" clauses. Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
