+1
On Oct 2, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
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
