Would heads explode if I suggested two new components: mahout-math and mahout-collections, the second depending on the first?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I'm concerned, we can probably do this in steps, as long as we > stabilize before 0.3, so no pushing down for now. > > -jake > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
