@saudet if it is a maven package consumption should be fine as long as the license isn't fall under (no license, GPL, LGPL or some license that ASF doesn't approve). I would +1 to the solution you have mentioned in JavaCPP. One last question is the maintainance cost, since JavaCPP is doing the generation work, how much maintainance does it require from community to keep in here?
@hmf Sure, please go ahead and create one if you feel it necessary once we have Java API. So I would like to summarize the topic here: 1. Go for JavaCPP solution for its better performance. The source code will also be part of the Apache MXNet. In 2.0, we will expect the CI/CD pipeline for MXNet low level Java API. 2. Go for JNA build pipeline to the community, it can be used out-of-box now without issue. Similarly, the maintainance is very low and less dependencieces required. The source code can also be donated to Apache MXNet. Both solution are targeted for MXNet low level Java API. @gigasquid @leezu @szha @zachgk @terrytangyuan @yzhliu Any thoughts? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17783#issuecomment-702297732
