That seems like a great idea. Can you submit a pull request?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Shixiong Zhu <zsxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we put the `implicit` into "pacakge object rdd" or "object rdd", when > we write `rdd.groupbykey()`, because rdd is an object of RDD, Scala > compiler will search `object rdd`(companion object) and `package object > rdd`(pacakge > object) by default. We don't need to import them explicitly. Here is a > post about the implicit search logic: > http://eed3si9n.com/revisiting-implicits-without-import-tax > > To maintain the compatibility, we can keep `rddToPairRDDFunctions` in the > SparkContext but remove `implicit`. The disadvantage is there are two > copies of same codes. > > > > > Best Regards, > Shixiong Zhu > > 2014-11-14 3:57 GMT+08:00 Reynold Xin <r...@databricks.com>: > >> Do people usually important o.a.spark.rdd._ ? >> >> Also in order to maintain source and binary compatibility, we would need >> to keep both right? >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Shixiong Zhu <zsxw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I saw many people asked how to convert a RDD to a PairRDDFunctions. I >>> would >>> like to ask a question about it. Why not put the following implicit into >>> "pacakge object rdd" or "object rdd"? >>> >>> implicit def rddToPairRDDFunctions[K, V](rdd: RDD[(K, V)]) >>> (implicit kt: ClassTag[K], vt: ClassTag[V], ord: Ordering[K] = >>> null) >>> = { >>> new PairRDDFunctions(rdd) >>> } >>> >>> If so, the converting will be automatic and not need to >>> import org.apache.spark.SparkContext._ >>> >>> I tried to search some discussion but found nothing. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Shixiong Zhu >>> >> >> >
