Discussion: New commons module/project

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Discussion: New commons module/project

Claude Warren
Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things under
discussion.

I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
code examples in various languages for implementation.

For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.  But
the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take the
absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.

I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
discussions?  If so how does one go about it?

I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
discussion provided.

Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
documentation would include code.

Thoughts?
Claude


--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Bernd Eckenfels
Hello,

I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure would you require?

Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
________________________________
From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project

Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things under
discussion.

I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
code examples in various languages for implementation.

For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.  But
the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take the
absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.

I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
discussions?  If so how does one go about it?

I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
discussion provided.

Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
documentation would include code.

Thoughts?
Claude


--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Claude Warren
The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and
potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
pseudo code.

I think all this requires is:

   1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
   are closed
   2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
   discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
   3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
   sufficient.
   4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.

Claude



On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it
> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure
> would you require?
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> ________________________________
> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
>
> Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
> commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things under
> discussion.
>
> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
> documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
> code examples in various languages for implementation.
>
> For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.  But
> the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take the
> absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
>
> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
> algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
> discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
>
> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
> conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
> implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
> discussion provided.
>
> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
> documentation would include code.
>
> Thoughts?
> Claude
>
>
> --
> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>



--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Bruno P. Kinoshita-3
Hi Claude,

Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't recall if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs?

But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are created, I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first?


Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea?
Cheers
Bruno





________________________________
From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project



The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and
potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
pseudo code.

I think all this requires is:

   1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
   are closed
   2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
   discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
   3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
   sufficient.
   4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.

Claude



On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it
> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure
> would you require?
>
> Gruss
> Bernd
> --
> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> ________________________________
> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
>
> Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
> commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things under
> discussion.
>
> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
> documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
> code examples in various languages for implementation.
>
> For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.  But
> the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take the
> absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
>
> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
> algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
> discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
>
> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
> conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
> implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
> discussion provided.
>
> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
> documentation would include code.
>
> Thoughts?
> Claude
>
>
> --
> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren

>



--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Matt Sicker
A sort of commons-algorithms type library? That kind of strikes me as what
Commons is in the first place. I could see it being broken down into
components, though. For example, commons-graph <
https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/> (seems inactive) for
graph algorithms, commons-tree for trees, heaps, and other similar ADTs and
algorithms. Some ADTs already belong in commons-collections. Some
algorithms may already be in commons-math, and there's efforts toward
splitting that up into individual components (e.g., rng, numbers,
statistics), so it doesn't make sense to group them in there IMO.

On 13 February 2018 at 05:23, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Claude,
>
> Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't recall
> if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs?
>
> But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are created,
> I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first?
>
>
> Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the
> concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea?
> Cheers
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project
>
>
>
> The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and
> potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
> pseudo code.
>
> I think all this requires is:
>
>    1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
>    are closed
>    2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
>    discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
>    3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
>    sufficient.
>    4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.
>
> Claude
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
> > also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it
> > does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure
> > would you require?
> >
> > Gruss
> > Bernd
> > --
> > http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> > ________________________________
> > From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
> > To: Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
> >
> > Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
> > when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
> > commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things
> under
> > discussion.
> >
> > I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
> > documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
> > specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
> > module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
> > code examples in various languages for implementation.
> >
> > For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
> > modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.
> But
> > the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take
> the
> > absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
> > consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
> > choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
> >
> > I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
> > algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
> > discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
> >
> > I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
> > conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
> > implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
> > Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
> > discussion provided.
> >
> > Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
> > documentation would include code.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Claude
> >
> >
> > --
> > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> > <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Ralph Goers
If this was a project to create specs AND provide reference implementations I think it would make sense. I don’t see how a project that just creates specs fits with Commons personally.

Ralph

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A sort of commons-algorithms type library? That kind of strikes me as what
> Commons is in the first place. I could see it being broken down into
> components, though. For example, commons-graph <
> https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/> (seems inactive) for
> graph algorithms, commons-tree for trees, heaps, and other similar ADTs and
> algorithms. Some ADTs already belong in commons-collections. Some
> algorithms may already be in commons-math, and there's efforts toward
> splitting that up into individual components (e.g., rng, numbers,
> statistics), so it doesn't make sense to group them in there IMO.
>
> On 13 February 2018 at 05:23, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Claude,
>>
>> Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't recall
>> if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs?
>>
>> But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are created,
>> I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first?
>>
>>
>> Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the
>> concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea?
>> Cheers
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project
>>
>>
>>
>> The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and
>> potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
>> pseudo code.
>>
>> I think all this requires is:
>>
>>   1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
>>   are closed
>>   2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
>>   discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
>>   3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
>>   sufficient.
>>   4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.
>>
>> Claude
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
>>> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it
>>> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure
>>> would you require?
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Bernd
>>> --
>>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
>>> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
>>> commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things
>> under
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
>>> documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
>>> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
>>> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
>>> code examples in various languages for implementation.
>>>
>>> For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
>>> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.
>> But
>>> the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take
>> the
>>> absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
>>> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
>>> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
>>>
>>> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
>>> algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
>>> discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
>>>
>>> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
>>> conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
>>> implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
>>> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
>>> discussion provided.
>>>
>>> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
>>> documentation would include code.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Claude
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
>>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Charles Honton
What can / does commons provide that cannot be done with GitHub?

chas

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If this was a project to create specs AND provide reference implementations I think it would make sense. I don’t see how a project that just creates specs fits with Commons personally.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> A sort of commons-algorithms type library? That kind of strikes me as what
>> Commons is in the first place. I could see it being broken down into
>> components, though. For example, commons-graph <
>> https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/> (seems inactive) for
>> graph algorithms, commons-tree for trees, heaps, and other similar ADTs and
>> algorithms. Some ADTs already belong in commons-collections. Some
>> algorithms may already be in commons-math, and there's efforts toward
>> splitting that up into individual components (e.g., rng, numbers,
>> statistics), so it doesn't make sense to group them in there IMO.
>>
>> On 13 February 2018 at 05:23, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Claude,
>>>
>>> Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't recall
>>> if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs?
>>>
>>> But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are created,
>>> I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first?
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the
>>> concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea?
>>> Cheers
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm and
>>> potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
>>> pseudo code.
>>>
>>> I think all this requires is:
>>>
>>>  1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
>>>  are closed
>>>  2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
>>>  discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
>>>  3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
>>>  sufficient.
>>>  4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.
>>>
>>> Claude
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
>>>> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case it
>>>> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What infrastructure
>>>> would you require?
>>>>
>>>> Gruss
>>>> Bernd
>>>> --
>>>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
>>>> To: Commons Developers List
>>>> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here so
>>>> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project under
>>>> commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things
>>> under
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
>>>> documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest, writing
>>>> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
>>>> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work out
>>>> code examples in various languages for implementation.
>>>>
>>>> For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
>>>> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.
>>> But
>>>> the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take
>>> the
>>>> absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you required to
>>>> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
>>>> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
>>>>
>>>> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
>>>> algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
>>>> discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could be
>>>> conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
>>>> implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was achieved.
>>>> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
>>>> discussion provided.
>>>>
>>>> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
>>>> documentation would include code.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Claude
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
>>>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
>>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Discussion: New commons module/project

Claude Warren
@Charles,
I thought of Commons because it is where people go to find common code.  it
provides a web presence to base the code and discussion from.  Though
perhaps Github would suffice.

@Ralph,
I agree that reference implementations would be good.  But I didn't want to
start a "language war" with respect to what languages to support.  I think
that if there is a discussion and a consensus reached we are 90% of the way
to reference implementations.  What may be more critical are reference
tests.

I will come back to my discussion of Bloom filters because there is so much
variance in how they are implemented in the wild.  Bloom filters are used
in a number of products and (as far as I know) there is no place to go for
a clear, concise description of how to create them.  In fact the Cassandra
code has a comment block that indicates their modified code method is
faster and produces the same range of results as other methods.

Another algorithm that I can not find any detail on is the blockchain
mining algorithm.  How is a minor notifiied that a new block has been added
to the chain and who do they notify when they add a new block.  There are
lots of high level descriptions but no low level algorithm type info that I
have been able to find.

For algorithms like merge-sort or b-tree there are lots of books and other
publications that describe the algorithms, but many of the "newer"
constructs do not.  I see this project as a place developers can turn to to
find the information they need to implement various algorithms, and if not
to start a discussion about how to correctly implement it.

Claude







On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:33 AM, Charles Honton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What can / does commons provide that cannot be done with GitHub?
>
> chas
>
> > On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > If this was a project to create specs AND provide reference
> implementations I think it would make sense. I don’t see how a project that
> just creates specs fits with Commons personally.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Matt Sicker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> A sort of commons-algorithms type library? That kind of strikes me as
> what
> >> Commons is in the first place. I could see it being broken down into
> >> components, though. For example, commons-graph <
> >> https://commons.apache.org/sandbox/commons-graph/> (seems inactive) for
> >> graph algorithms, commons-tree for trees, heaps, and other similar ADTs
> and
> >> algorithms. Some ADTs already belong in commons-collections. Some
> >> algorithms may already be in commons-math, and there's efforts toward
> >> splitting that up into individual components (e.g., rng, numbers,
> >> statistics), so it doesn't make sense to group them in there IMO.
> >>
> >> On 13 February 2018 at 05:23, Bruno P. Kinoshita <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Claude,
> >>>
> >>> Quite sure there was similar discussion some time ago. But I can't
> recall
> >>> if it was here in commons, somewhere in the incubator, or labs?
> >>>
> >>> But regarding commons, before the component/jira/mailing list are
> created,
> >>> I think it would have to go either via sandbox or incubator first?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps having some code somewhere like GitHub to show more or less the
> >>> concept would make it easier for others to evaluate the idea?
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> >>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 11:55 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New commons module/project
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The goal is arrive at a common understanding of the specific algorithm
> and
> >>> potentially one or more code examples for implementation which may be
> >>> pseudo code.
> >>>
> >>> I think all this requires is:
> >>>
> >>>  1.  jira (or similar) to track the discussions and mark them when they
> >>>  are closed
> >>>  2. A mechanism to list the algorithms that have been or are under
> >>>  discussion.  Perhaps the Jira search could provide this by default.
> >>>  3. A repository for code snippets.  Though again perhaps Jira would be
> >>>  sufficient.
> >>>  4. Mailing list in order to take votes and the like.
> >>>
> >>> Claude
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <
> [hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am not sure how this might turn out, is it only discussion or do you
> >>>> also want to develop a specification language/toolset? In either case
> it
> >>>> does not sound like the typical commons sub-project. What
> infrastructure
> >>>> would you require?
> >>>>
> >>>> Gruss
> >>>> Bernd
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: Claude Warren <[hidden email]>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:36:55 AM
> >>>> To: Commons Developers List
> >>>> Subject: Discussion: New commons module/project
> >>>>
> >>>> Disclaimer:  I am not certain of the proper nomenclature to use here
> so
> >>>> when I say module consider that it may be a sub-project or project
> under
> >>>> commons.  The term should be taken to mean a collection of the things
> >>> under
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to propose a commons module for the development and
> >>>> documentation of algorithms.  As anyone who has tried can attest,
> writing
> >>>> specifications that are not misunderstood is nigh on impossible.  This
> >>>> module would provide an area to discuss various algorithms and work
> out
> >>>> code examples in various languages for implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example: Bloom Filters.  When creating a bloom filter you take the
> >>>> modulus of a digest to determine which bit in a bit vector to turn on.
> >>> But
> >>>> the modulus of a negative number is negative.  So is it proper to take
> >>> the
> >>>> absolute value (abs)  of the modulus or the digest or are you
> required to
> >>>> consider the digest to be a very long unsigned integer?  All of these
> >>>> choices have repercussions and may impact interoperability.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have several co-workers and friends that are interested in exploring
> >>>> algorithms of this sort.  Is there any interest here in starting such
> >>>> discussions?  If so how does one go about it?
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to see a ticketing system (Jira?) that discussions could
> be
> >>>> conducted against.  So, for example, a single ticket for bloom filter
> >>>> implementation.  The ticket would stay open until consensus was
> achieved.
> >>>> Once achieved the result would be documented and references to the
> >>>> discussion provided.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not clear on where to document the results and whether or not that
> >>>> documentation would include code.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>> Claude
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> >>>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> >>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
> >>> <http://like-like.xenei.com>
> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matt Sicker <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web
<http://like-like.xenei.com>
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren