Qin's question actually raises an issue-- it seems that using a close() call, which does not throw IOException and which does not provide the user with access to the OutputCollector object makes this important piece of functionality (from a client's perspective) hard to use. Does anyone feel strongly about altering the contract so that close() throws IOException and provides the implementer with the OutputCollector object?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Qin Gao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Chris, that's exactly what I am trying to do. It solves my problem. > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Chris Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Qin, since I can guess what you're trying to do with this (emit a >> bunch of expected counts at the end of EM?), you can write output >> during the call to close(). It involves having to store the output >> collector object as a member of the class, but this is a way to do a >> final flush on the object before it is destroyed. >> >> Chris >> >> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Qin Gao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hi mailing, >> > >> > Are there any way to know whether the mapper is processing the last >> record >> > that assigned to this node, or know how many records remain to be >> processed >> > in this node? >> > >> > >> > Qin >> > >> >
