> @saudet Thanks for your proposal. I have four questions would like to ask you: > > 1. If we adopt JavaCpp package, how will that be consumed? Under byteco or > apache MXNet? Essentially from our previous discussion, we really don't want > another 3rdparty checkin.
We can go either way, but I found that projects like MXNet or TensorFlow that need to develop high-level APIs on top of something like JavaCPP prefer to have control over everything in their own repositories, and use JavaCPP pretty much like we would use pybind and pip for Python. I started the JavaCPP Presets because for projects such as OpenCV, FFmpeg, LLVM, etc, high-level APIs for other languages than C/C++ are not being developed as part of those projects. I also realized the Java community needed something like Anaconda... > 2. Can you also do a benchmark on the MXNet's API's performance and possibly > share the reproducible code? We did test the performance on JavaCpp vs JNA vs > JNI and didn't see much difference on performance (under 10%). > > > * MXImperativeInvokeEx > > * CachedOpForward > > > The above two methods are most frequently used methods in order to do minimum > inference request, please try on these two to see how performance goes. > If you're doing only batch operations, as would be the case for Python bindings, you're not going to see much difference, no. What you need to look at are things like the Indexer package, which allows us to implement fast custom operations in Java like this: http://bytedeco.org/news/2014/12/23/third-release/ You're not going to be able to do that with JNA or JNI without essentially recoding that kind of thing. > 3. We do have some additional technical issue with JavaCpp, is there any plan > to fix it? (I will put it into a separate comment since it is really big. > > 4. How do you ensure the performance if the build flag is different? Like the > mxnet has to build from source (with necessary modification on source code) > in order to work along with javacpp > > 5. regarding to the dependencies issue, can we go without additional opencv > and openblas in the package? Yes, that's the kind of issues that would be best dealt with by using only JavaCPP as a low-level tool, instead of the presets, which is basically a high-level distribution like Anaconda. -- 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-663916338
