First of all, thanks a lot for putting such a great library together for us. I recently started working with JUNG for doing basic graph analysis as part of my application and am quite enjoying its functionality.
My question is regarding the current status of the development. I can see that the SF CVS repository is still alive, but the latest update on the code and the web site seems to be really old. So I was wondering what are the close future plans for the library?
I am willing to contribute to the project as I am currently implementing a few graph algorithms by myself and will probably need more of them soon; it won't take much effort to code the algorithms in a way that is compatible with the library, but before going ahead I just wanted to drop by to see what's the current procedure to do and who is still around.
Oh and, I think it is time to leave the CVS repository behind and move on to hg/git as if you were already on it, I could simply be doing a pull request instead of going into this much trouble :\
Any ideas?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Sorry for the delay in response. A bunch of stuff landed in my inbox recently and it's taken some time to clear.
Taking your questions in order:
(1) The primary focus of development at the moment is a behind-the-scenes migration which is planned to include (at least) the following:
- move to host the project on Google Code rather than SourceForge (I've had numerous problems with SF over the years…among other things, I've had to migrate the wiki at least three times as their infrastructure has changed)
There's a 'strawman' version of this already up on Google Code, incidentally.
- move to another version control system (current plan is to use SVN, but if there are strong opinions otherwise, please let me know)
- move to using Guava in place of Larvalab's collections library
Ideally, there are also many other architectural changes and improvements that I'd like to make. My current job has not left me a lot of time to do this, however. One of the reasons that I'd like to move to Google Code is that there is a built-in code review system, which has the potential to make it much easier to get community changes in.
I would also like to find at least one other person that is interested in working on this project over the longer term.
(2) Regarding your proposed contribution: realistically, given what I've already got going on, I could not guarantee that they'd get added soon (and I wouldn't guarantee unconditionally that they would be at all, of course; it would depend on what they were, how well tested they were, etc.). You may not have seen the followup post that was made to the jung-support list, but creating your own project that uses JUNG as a dependency is probably a reasonable near-term solution, at least.
Anyway, glad to hear that JUNG is working well for you; we hope that it will continue to do so indefinitely, in one form or another. :)
Joshua
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I am currently working on Deep Email Miner, which still uses version 1.7.5 of JUNG. I have plans to move it to Version 2. I see now that you are working on Version 3.0. Should I postpone my modifications or is Version 3.0 planned to be mostly compatible with Version 2?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi all,
First of all, thanks a lot for putting such a great library together for us. I recently started working with JUNG for doing basic graph analysis as part of my application and am quite enjoying its functionality.
My question is regarding the current status of the development. I can see that the SF CVS repository is still alive, but the latest update on the code and the web site seems to be really old. So I was wondering what are the close future plans for the library?
I am willing to contribute to the project as I am currently implementing a few graph algorithms by myself and will probably need more of them soon; it won't take much effort to code the algorithms in a way that is compatible with the library, but before going ahead I just wanted to drop by to see what's the current procedure to do and who is still around.
Oh and, I think it is time to leave the CVS repository behind and move on to hg/git as if you were already on it, I could simply be doing a pull request instead of going into this much trouble :\
Any ideas?
Sorry for the delay in response. A bunch of stuff landed in my inbox recently and it's taken some time to clear.
Taking your questions in order:
(1) The primary focus of development at the moment is a behind-the-scenes migration which is planned to include (at least) the following:
- move to host the project on Google Code rather than SourceForge (I've had numerous problems with SF over the years…among other things, I've had to migrate the wiki at least three times as their infrastructure has changed)
There's a 'strawman' version of this already up on Google Code, incidentally.
- move to another version control system (current plan is to use SVN, but if there are strong opinions otherwise, please let me know)
- move to using Guava in place of Larvalab's collections library
Ideally, there are also many other architectural changes and improvements that I'd like to make. My current job has not left me a lot of time to do this, however. One of the reasons that I'd like to move to Google Code is that there is a built-in code review system, which has the potential to make it much easier to get community changes in.
I would also like to find at least one other person that is interested in working on this project over the longer term.
(2) Regarding your proposed contribution: realistically, given what I've already got going on, I could not guarantee that they'd get added soon (and I wouldn't guarantee unconditionally that they would be at all, of course; it would depend on what they were, how well tested they were, etc.). You may not have seen the followup post that was made to the jung-support list, but creating your own project that uses JUNG as a dependency is probably a reasonable near-term solution, at least.
Anyway, glad to hear that JUNG is working well for you; we hope that it will continue to do so indefinitely, in one form or another. :)
Joshua
I am currently working on Deep Email Miner, which still uses version 1.7.5 of JUNG. I have plans to move it to Version 2. I see now that you are working on Version 3.0. Should I postpone my modifications or is Version 3.0 planned to be mostly compatible with Version 2?