[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13542112#comment-13542112
]
Dan Filimon commented on MAHOUT-1135:
-------------------------------------
The main thins is that adding the superclass makes MatrixSlice a real Vector. :)
So, Cloneable is implemented in Vector so DecoratedVector<T> indirectly
implements it despite not providing a clone(). I actually think this class
should be abstract so as not use it directly without thought out cloning code
for the value.
> 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
