[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13542104#comment-13542104
]
Dan Filimon commented on MAHOUT-1135:
-------------------------------------
I think it's better to actually keep the classes (WeightedVector and friends)
and make them extend DecoratedVector<T>.
Doing this, the tests seem to pass and existing Writables don't need to be
changed.
Also, the existing writables don't even seem to match the vector classes
completely.
For instance, org.apache.mahout.clustering.classify.WeightedVectorWritable
actually only has a weight (not an index as WeightedVector).
But, honestly, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by Hadoop serialization. Could
you please be more specific?
> Unify decorated vectors in DecoratedVector<T>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-1135
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1135
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: Math
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Reporter: Dan Filimon
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: improvement, vector
>
> I'm finding the current Vector classes in Mahout a bit confusing.
> The vector implementation are just fine, I'm talking more about the decorated
> vectors:
> WeightedVector
> MatrixSlice
> NamedVector
> I propose using a single DecoratedVector<T> type that can easily be extended.
> For example, right now MatrixSlice doesn't even implement the Vector
> interface.
> So,
> WeightedVector -> DecoratedVector<Pair<Integer, Double>>
> MatrixSlice -> DecoratedVector<Integer>
> NamedVector -> DecoratedVector<String>
> We could even keep the names (maybe changing MatrixSlice to something like
> IndexedVector though?) by extending DecoratedVector<T>.
> I'd be willing to fix this if people think it's a good idea.
> What about it? :)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
