Jake Mannix commented on GIRAPH-36:

Yeah, I having it return the current vertex sounds good, I guess.  There's 
still something nagging at me about the way Writables are being used: Giraph is 
*different* from Hadoop: there's a persistent, in-memory data structure being 
built here, where there *isn't* in Hadoop.  Regardless of how we read the data, 
or send the data over the wire, or write it to disk, we're also hanging onto 
it.  I wonder if we need to make the abstraction around that more clear?

Maybe simply solving the title of this JIRA ticket would do the trick, which 
would at a minimum require that BasicVertex implement Writable, and other than 
that, it could work with VertexReader API's of either flavor.

I think I can try working on this ticket without monkeying with the 
VertexReader API, but I won't know until I start unravelling this ball of 
string a bit.

> Ensure that subclassing BasicVertex is possible by user apps
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: GIRAPH-36
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GIRAPH-36
>             Project: Giraph
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: graph
>    Affects Versions: 0.70.0
>            Reporter: Jake Mannix
>            Assignee: Jake Mannix
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 0.70.0
> Original assumptions in Giraph were that all users would subclass Vertex 
> (which extended MutableVertex extended BasicVertex).  Classes which wish to 
> have application specific data structures (ie. not a TreeMap<I, Edge<I,E>>) 
> may need to extend either MutableVertex or BasicVertex.  Unfortunately 
> VertexRange extends ArrayList<Vertex>, and there are other places where the 
> assumption is that vertex classes are either Vertex, or at least 
> MutableVertex.
> Let's make sure the internal APIs allow for BasicVertex to be the base class.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Reply via email to