You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(4) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(18) |
Oct
(3) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2005 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(7) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(14) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(6) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
| 2007 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(8) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(2) |
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
(4) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
| 2008 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(2) |
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2009 |
Jan
(2) |
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Barak Naveh <barak_naveh@us...> - 2003-10-07 07:20:15
|
> DefaultListenableGraph.clone clones the lists of listeners and > associates them with the cloned graph. Is this correct? If I ask to > listen to a graph, that doesn't mean I want to listen to its clones that > I don't even know about. Sounds very incorrect to me -- opened a bug report. Other opinions? |
|
From: John V. Sichi <jsichi@ya...> - 2003-10-07 05:57:27
|
DefaultListenableGraph.clone clones the lists of listeners and associates them with the cloned graph. Is this correct? If I ask to listen to a graph, that doesn't mean I want to listen to its clones that I don't even know about. JVS |
|
From: John V. Sichi <jsichi@ya...> - 2003-10-07 01:18:44
|
Graph.java has the following comment: "This library works best when vertices represent arbitrary objects and edgesrepresent the relationships between them. While vertex instances are expected to be included in more than one graph, edges are generally assumed to be exclusive to one graph. The method <code>addEdge(Edge)</code> provides a back-door for that assumption and a programmer must exercise care if decided to use it." What is the reason for the edge ownership exclusivity? Allowing edges to be aliased in more than one graph is generally useful (especially if they have some additional information associated with them). And view graphs like SubGraph and AsUndirectedGraph implicitly violate the ownership rule. Anyway, it seems like it should be a hard rule one way or the other, not just a "general assumption." JVS |
|
From: John V. Sichi <jsichi@ya...> - 2003-09-16 00:23:26
|
Stuart and I were discussing a related topic offline (performance vs. genericity). Using multiple implementations, we could leave it up to the user to decide, although that means more to maintain. When Barak gets back, let's see where he wants to go with all of this. JVS Michael Behrisch wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > I checked some source code and unfortunately noticed only afterwards > that there is already a Dijkstra (and even a FibonnacciHeap). I would > like to have different heaps, because in practice the Fibo is often > slower than a simple BinaryHeap (although this one does not meet > the hard runtime bounds). Maybe we move the heap package one up > and let runtime-tests decide which of the implementations of the Fibo > to choose? > > Michael > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQE/ZbVIZDyR4hR8HnQRAqmyAJ9ckJThlyeQrPFGqX/0caKzb3JmNACfY5Vg > sBHEV+QMBcVJHn7dsqP7yDg= > =Gfpr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > jgrapht-developers mailing list > jgrapht-developers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgrapht-developers |
|
From: Michael Behrisch <behrisch@in...> - 2003-09-15 12:49:16
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I checked some source code and unfortunately noticed only afterwards that there is already a Dijkstra (and even a FibonnacciHeap). I would like to have different heaps, because in practice the Fibo is often slower than a simple BinaryHeap (although this one does not meet the hard runtime bounds). Maybe we move the heap package one up and let runtime-tests decide which of the implementations of the Fibo to choose? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/ZbVIZDyR4hR8HnQRAqmyAJ9ckJThlyeQrPFGqX/0caKzb3JmNACfY5Vg sBHEV+QMBcVJHn7dsqP7yDg= =Gfpr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
From: Barak Naveh <barak@3p...> - 2003-09-04 06:52:32
|
In second thought, the guy has a point. The AbstractBaseGraph is non-instantiable. Perhaps should be called "AdjacencyListGraph" and made instantiable (non-abstract)? > -----Original Message----- > From: SourceForge.net [mailto:noreply@...] > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 08:25 > To: noreply@... > Subject: [jgrapht - Users] simple, multi, pseudo, directed >=20 >=20 > Read and respond to this message at: > https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=3D2177962 > By: nobody >=20 > In graph theory, I am well aware of the distinction between simple, = multi, > etc. >=20 > However, when it comes to implementation, I am wondering why you chose = to > divide > them up. Could you not come up with a single data structure to handle = all > the > cases? |
|
From: Barak Naveh <barnav@cs...> - 2003-09-03 21:33:20
|
I think that for developers the mailing list provides a more convenient alternative to the forum (allows to attach files and to work from the email client). Postings are archived on the website similarly to the forum and should appear at http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=86459. Barak |