Sorry I meant Mahout's class by this name. Just provides a factory method which will provide a seeded or non-seeded java.util.Random depending on whether it's being run in the context of tests or not.
I imagine all PRNGs need to be injected for us to confidently run tests deterministically? Nothing in my part of the code particularly cares about the PRNG being hard-core random. Random is good for me. Why does some of the code need the Mersenne twister PRNG... or does it? I prefer keeping it standard, then simple, if possible. Any PRNG is cool by me, just want to pick one solution unless there is a compelling reason not to. Fine with one solution now, and a different one solution later. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Ted Dunning<[email protected]> wrote: > RandomUtils is in commons.lang.math which is a separate class/package/world > entirely. It seems to provide almost no added value over Random. In > particular, I don't see why this helps make random numbers more > deterministic than any competent PRNG implementation. All implementations > that I know of allow seeding. The javadoc on RandomUtils does not inspire > confidence in me since it implies that it inherits the well-known defects of > java.math.Random. > > The key here is just to allow (but not require) the RNG to be injectable for > any class that needs to generate random numbers. > > What value does RandomUtils bring over temporary use of java.math.Random and > long term use of commons math RandomData?
