As far as my feedback for the two options: > 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. They both sound reasonable and improvements to the system. Thank you both @lanking520 and @saudet for your time and efforts. The one aspect that I haven't heard discussed is that implementation of the base Java API - in particular if anyone is planning on tackling this? If so, the person/s building out the dev work themselves might have a preference that would weight it one way or the other. -- 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-708013272
