Thanks guys,  I was wondering about the java.util.Map conversion too.  I'll try 
copying everything into a java.util.HashMap and passing that to setRowBindings. 
 I'll play around with it and if i cant get it to work, I'll file a jira.  

I'm just using it in the NB implementation so its not a pressing issue.

Appreciate it.

> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:35:21 -0700
> Subject: Re: drmFromHDFS rowLabelBindings question
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> 
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Anand Avati <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Anand Avati <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> bit i you are really compelled that it is something that might be needed,
> >>> the best way probably would be indeed create an optional parameter to
> >>> collect (something like drmLike.collect(extractLabels:Boolean=false))
> >>> which
> >>> you can flip to true if needed and the thing does toString on keys and
> >>> assinging them to in-core matrix' row labels. (requires a patch of
> >>> course)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As I mentioned in the other mail, this is already the case. The code
> >> seems to assume .toMap internally does collect. My (somewhat wild)
> >> suspicion is that this line is somehow fooling the eye:
> >>
> >> val rowBindings = d.map(t => (t._1._1.toString, t._2: 
> >> java.lang.Integer)).toMap
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Argh, for a moment I was thinking `d` is still an rdd. It is actually all
> > in-core, as the entirety of the rdd is collected up front into `data`. In
> > any case I suspect the non-int key collecting code might be doing something
> > funny.
> >
> 
> One problem I see is that toMap() returns scala.collections.Map, whereas
> the next line, m.setRowLabelBindings accepts a java.util.Map. Since the
> code compiles fine there is probably an implicit conversion happening
> somewhere, and I dont know if the conversion is doing the right thing.
> Other than this, rest of the code seems to look fine.
                                          

Reply via email to