thinking about it a bit further, maybe a separate module for IO related stuff may be worth, so hama-io instead of hama-commons. Whatever it is I'd like to avoid duplicated code. Tommaso
2012/12/13 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> > Otherwise, we have to copy VertexInputReader class to core module or > add own partitioner to graph package. > > In fact, I don't want to put any graph-related code to core module. > But if we want to support VertexInputReader, I think this is best. > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:22 AM, Apurv Verma <[email protected]> wrote: > > +0 I am not against but I think that would be an overkill for now. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Apurv Verma > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Tommaso Teofili > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> that sounds good to me, +1 for a hama-commons module. > >> > >> Tommaso > >> > >> > >> 2012/12/13 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I propose to create common module to share common classes among all > >>> modules. > >>> > >>> At the moment, the main reason is to support VertexInputReader. As I > >>> mentioned here[1], there's no way to integrate partitioner without > >>> merging graph to core or adding graph own partitioner. If we create > >>> common module, it'll all be clear. I'm not maven and java expert. If > >>> I'm wrong, please correct me. > >>> > >>> 1. > >>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-531?focusedCommentId=13483009&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13483009 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > >>> @eddieyoon > >>> > > > > -- > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > @eddieyoon >
