I think, we may want to change like <? extends Writable, ? extends Writable>.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> wrote: > I prefer the Writable. > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Thomas Jungblut > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I refactored the messaging in 0.3.0 and changed this from an inteface to an >> abstract base class. >> Currently it is fine, but I feel that the user is too restricted in using >> messages. >> You have this strict structure of tag and data. I think we should widen the >> messages to just Messagable . >> If we want to have the freedom to add additional things, we should extend >> Messagable from Writable and use this for it. >> >> So send may look like this: >> >> public final void send(String peerName, Messagable msg) >> >> >> and getCurrentMessage: >> >> public final Messagable getCurrentMessage() >> >> >> However, I am not really happy that we return Messagable (requires casting >> and stuff). >> For the usecases of specific tagging we can add the getTag() method to the >> Messagable interface. >> What type should this be then? I mean, String would be quite a large >> overhead. Integer might not be useful. >> >> Or should we widen this to Writable instead? So you can send things you've >> read from sequencefiles directly to other tasks. >> >> What do you think? I am still not aware of how it should look like. Or are >> you satisfied with the current messaging? >> >> -- >> Thomas Jungblut >> Berlin <[email protected]> > > > > -- > Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon > @eddieyoon -- Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon @eddieyoon
