Yes, this sounds to me reasonable as well. Other opinions? Otherwise I am filing a jira for that.
2012/2/3 Edward J. Yoon <[email protected]> > 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 > -- Thomas Jungblut Berlin <[email protected]>
