+1 to all of Drew's comments
Drew Farris wrote:
+1 to eliminating the statics, they are indeed evil. The type to read
should be stored in the thing doing/facilitating the reading not the
vector itself and definitely not in a static field. Pretty sure vector
shouldn't be facilitating the reading of itself. No need for
synchronization then. The static methods should go away.
+1 to different sparse/dense on disk representations. I don't want to
write a mostly empty 12000 element array if I have a cardinality of
12000 but only 30 values in each of my vectors. Likewise, I don't want
to write indexes for 5000 values if my cardinality is 5200.
+1 to eliminating class names in serializations (this is especially
bad when an efficiently managed enum can do the job)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Where do we actually use the VectorWritable.readVector() static
method?
Looks like it's used in about 16 places across the code.
We should remove them, I think. I'm pretty sure there's no reason for it.
There
is some inefficiency we need do deal with, which Robin brought up before: we
keep
a big String of the class name, and it should just be a little one-byte
enum-like
value.
Yah this would be the same thing, if the static fields went away.
Ergo, I think this method should just delegate to the constructor. Or
go away entirely. Thoughts?
+1 to go away entirely. Statics are evil, as Ted says. If they're not
needed,
they shouldn't be used. They're only here because when I ripped Writable
out of Vector, I made "the minimal possible change that would work", and
left
some cruft behind.
-jake
