[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-699?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13806112#comment-13806112
]
ChiaHung Lin commented on HAMA-699:
-----------------------------------
It's a preference like Java api which places interfaces and classes in the same
package so to increase the cohesion within a package. In addition, I prefer
with the aid of tool to check signature between classes/ interfaces so that
mistakes can be reduced. For example, when placing interface and classes of
same purpose in the same package, a developer do not need to explicitly import
from external packages and it can use restricted (default) methods without
increasing method visibility such as protected. I understand some design prefer
clear separating between interfaces and classes, etc.; example like placing
exception into one package - a.b.c.exception. So I am not against that, and
just wanted to check if moving classes like DenseVectorWritable to io won't
cause any side effect : )
Moving smaller parts once at a time looks reasonable as it reduces risks of
instability to our code base, and is easier to debug if something goes wrong.
Once it's stable, other related classes can be reorganized without worrying if
something we are not aware of. So personally I would go for smaller patch.
> Add commons module
> ------------------
>
> Key: HAMA-699
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAMA-699
> Project: Hama
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Edward J. Yoon
> Assignee: Martin Illecker
> Fix For: 0.7.0
>
> Attachments: commons-module.txt, HAMA-699.patch
>
>
> As we disscussed, I'd like to add commons module.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
