Yep. JAMA looks good to me as well. I am not all that familiar with it and think that JBLAS would be good too but that seems like it would add quite a few unneeded dependencies.
Adam On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > OK, so looking at the license for JAMA: > > http://wordhoard.northwestern.edu/userman/thirdparty/jama.html > > and > http://muuki88.github.io/jama-osgi/license.html > > > Looks like the later is ALv2 licensed. So JAMA looks good to me, > too. > > Cheers, > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> > Organization: Geomatys > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, September 8, 2013 1:23 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Needs a matrix library > > >Thanks all for the tips. So if I'm summarizing right: > > > > * Hama and Spark are designed for distributed computing. Given that > > our need is for small matrices (usually no more than 5x5), > > distributed computing would probably be too much. However I keep > > Hama and Spark in mind for the SIS "Grid Coverage" (or Raster) > > processing part, to come later. > > * JBlas seems to be JNI wrappers around LAPACK and BLAS Fortran > > libraries. For small matrix, the JNI cost may be larger than the > > benefit. I will keep JBlas in mind for some computations that > > require large matrix, but those computations are not expected to > > occur in the "referencing" part of SIS. > > * Other libraries under compatible license include Apache Commons Math > > [1] and JAMA [2]. > > > > > >Given that Apache Commons is a large library (the JAR file is 1.6 Mb) > >while JAMA is very small and focused on Matrix only (a 36.5 kb file), I > >would be tempted to propose JAMA. Is there any though on that? > > > > > > Martin > > > > > >[1] http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/ > >[2] http://math.nist.gov/javanumerics/jama/ > > > > >
