Yes the naming is more than inconsistent. I thought we are going to add constants (for example) to the BSPInterface, so it isn't any more than just a marker interface. I would just remove the BSPInterface. Or is there another reason for it to be empty/existing?
2012/7/9 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> > Hi all, > > I'd like to enhance our BSP API, the BSPInterface is currently useless as > it's only used by BSP and not providing any method signature. > So since we're meant to be backward compatibile, at least API wise, with > other Hama 0.x versions I'd propose to move the BSP methods' signatures in > the BSPInteracee and let the BSP class as it is (with no change on our most > used class :P): > Also I don't like the BSPInterface name, in the future I'd like more to > have the BSPInterface just called BSP and the current BSP be called > BSPBase/AbstractBSP but that should be done in a 1.0 version I think. > Another option would be to just remove the BSPInterface class and let > everything as it is in the BSP class, this would make sense but API wise > it's usually nice to have a plain interface define all the methods > contracts. > > What do you think? > Regards, > Tommaso >
