On 4/20/11 3:46 AM, Nick Fortescue wrote: > On 20 April 2011 11:45, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello Nick. >> >>> MullerSolver() and other Univariate solvers (NewtonSolver, >>> SecantSolver) have had their no argument constructor deprecated. In >>> the deprecation comment it says "to be removed in 3.0". I can see no >>> mention in the javadocs for commons-math 2.2 or 3.0 of any replacement >>> mechanism for constructing, and the method still exists in the 3.0 >>> javadoc. >>> I can think of 4 possibilities: >>> >>> 1) The deprecation of this method was a mistake and added at the same >>> time as the constructor which took a function. >>> 2) The proposal is that construction be moved to a factory class, but >>> the Factory class has not been added yet. >>> 3) There is an alternative way of constructing a MullerSolver I >>> haven't found yet. >>> 4) Deprecation has been decided with no migration route yet decided upon. >>> >>> Can anyone tell me which of these is correct, or a fifth option, and >>> tell me how code which uses "new MullerSolver()" should be changed? >>> >>> I really hope it isn't 4! My guess is 2, as SecantSolver has >>> UnivariateRealSolverFactoryImpl.newSecantColver(). While I might >>> disagree with this design (force the use of the Factory) at least >>> there is the hope of migration. >> It's not 2) because "UnivariateRealSolverFactory" has been removed in the >> development code. Cf. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-439 >> >> The indication of future removal was a mistake: A default constructor still >> exist (setting a default value for the absolute accuracy) but it does not >> behave as in 2.2 (where there was also a default "maximum iteration count", >> which is now replaced with a "maximum evaluation count" to be passed to the >> "solve" method). >> >> >> Best regards, >> Gilles > Thanks for clarifying Gilles. Is there any chance of getting the > @deprecated out of a 2.2 release? We try and keep our deprecated > warning count down in our codebase, and this has hit us with a lot. > Similarly for Secant, Newton etc? Should I add this to the Math-439 > issue? Please open a new issue with affects version = 2.2.
A patch attached to the ticket against the MATH_2_X branch would be helpful if we do decide to release a 2.2.1. Thanks for reporting this. Phil > Nick > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
