> @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
> ## What's missing
>
> javacpp-presets-mxnet doesn't expose APIs form nnvm/c_api.h (some of current
> python/gluon API depends on APIs in nnvm/c_api.h)
I've added that the other day, thanks to @frankfliu for pointing this out:
