On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:17 AM, Jake Mannix wrote: > > So why do we really need vectors to be Writable? I see the appeal, it's >> nice and makes the code nicely integrated, but the way I ended up going, >> so that you could use decomposer either with or without Hadoop was to >> use a decorator - just have VectorWritable be an implementation of Vector >> which encapsulates the Writable methods, and delegates to a Hadoop - >> agnostic Vector member instance. >> >> This way all the algorithms which use the Vectors don't need to care about >> Hadoop unless they really do. >> > > That sounds reasonable, just going to take a little refactoring. > So what do the rest of you think about doing this? Do we want to do some refactoring (post 0.2, naturally) which separates the writableness from the Matrix/Vector-ness? Or are we fine with all of our linear algebraic classes being tied to HDFS at an interface level? (Even Matrices, which will probably soon need to be adapted to the idea that often they won't live on any single machine, and thus you'll never be write()'ing them out all at once, and so won't always even make sense to have them be Writable). -jake
