That's a good question. I was not going to push them down, but if you/others believethat they should be pushed down at this point I'd be happy to do so.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > This all makes sense, I'm just wondering about the fact that now in the > top-level > in o.a.m.math, we have Vector, Matrix, SparseVector, etc. from the original > Mahout > linear algebra stuff. > > Should these not get pushed down into the math.matrix subdirectory (except > for > the functions which go down into math.function)? > > I can see *not* pushing them down, because it completely intermingles our > old > code with the Colt stuff, but at some point, they're going to be > intermingled, right? > > -jake > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As far as the package structure is concerned, Benson proposed >> something similar to the the following: >> >> o.a.m.matrix -> o.a.m.math >> o.a.m.jet -> o.a.m.math.jet >> >> Things currently under o.a.m.matrix would retain their existing names, >> with s/matrix/math, for example: >> >> o.a.m.math.bitvector >> o.a.m.math.buffer >> o.a.m.math.function >> o.a.m.math.list >> o.a.m.math.map >> o.a.m.math.matrix >> >> The maven submodule would be changed from mahout-matrix to mahout-math >> >> As far as committing cleanup changes -- it is whatever is in the patch >> to MAHOUT-222, which I have not reviewed Once 222 is committed I'll >> submit the reorg patch and more cleanup can proceed from there. I'm >> certainly open to alternatives as well, just trying to jump in where I >> can help. >> >> Drew >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > So we're committing cleanup changes first, and then doing reorg, right? >> > >> > I'm for o.a.m.math, but we need to decide on where stuff goes in >> subpackages >> > below that, and then where to put stuff as far as maven submodules too. >> > >> > -jake >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> No worries Sean -- it is really great to have your attention on the >> issue. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > No it's my bad, I missed one word while reading that message too fast >> >> > and misunderstood. Sorry for over-eagerly jumping in, I'll stay out of >> >> > this. >> >> >> > >> >
