[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12756556#action_12756556
]
Sean Owen commented on MAHOUT-178:
----------------------------------
I see, if you are saying mahout-utils really has this identity and is not just
another word for common code, then it should remain as is. I will revert that
part. And I think it can/should stay in a 'utils' package. As long as everyone
shares that rough understanding and organizes code accordingly, cool.
We have -examples, -utils, and now I am proposing -sandbox. I think they all
have coherent identities then, just making sure people think that makes sense.
I agree that 'common' is (only) for stuff shared by modules, and belongs in
-core.
> Rationalize 'utils' and 'common' stuff
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-178
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.1
> Reporter: Sean Owen
> Assignee: Sean Owen
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: MAHOUT-178.patch
>
>
> Every project needs a common area for code that is not obviously part of any
> specific piece of the project, typically because it's used in many places.
> This is good as it promotes reuse. I would like to make an explicit effort to
> rationalize this project's approach to 'common', starting with some basic
> reshuffling, which will then pave the way to unify more of the code that is
> duplicated now (thinking: caches, distance measures, Hadoop integration, etc.)
> Right now we have this common code in three places, when it seems like there
> should be basically one:
> - mahout-core: org.apache.mahout.utils
> - mahout-core: org.apache.mahout.common
> - mahout-utils
> I suggest that of the two packages named above, 'common' is slightly
> preferable; one could easily just merge these packages. I also would like to
> ask whether it makes sense to have a mahout-utils module? It's like having a
> mahout-core-core, in my opinion. It appears to serve exactly the same role as
> the other utils/common package. Would it ever be used as a standalone build
> product?
> Renaming may sound like a trivial change, but I think the above is merely
> symptomatic of several developers having independent ideas about where to
> stash common stuff. I want to force the issue and push everyone's stuff
> together to begin the hard but necessary work of refactoring the code base
> into something more unified.
> So far, I propose pushing all code together into org.apache.mahout.common.
> This is enough of a big-bang that will break patches that I want to propose
> it, and if agreed, plan when to commit.
> (Also, shouldn't stuff like the distance measure classes be in a package?)
> Anyway, partial patch will be attached shortly.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
