On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > VectorWritable currently is a proper decorator, right? It doesn't even > > implement Vector at all. > > Yeah, the other *Writable classes should be as well. NamedVector > should both be a Vector and decorate a Vector too. Its Writable also > decorates a NamedVector. > > > > > What exactly are you suggesting the hierarchy to be? > > > > 1) Vector is an interface, NamedVector extends it > > (I just have NamedVector as a concrete subclass, a decorator) >
So NamedVector (I think LabeledVector is probably better, actually) takes in its constructor another Vector which it delegates to, and then also has the name/label, sure. > > 4) VectorWritable acts still just as it is now, basically > > Yes, made it more general so we don't have to modify it to handle each > new Vector impl too. > The trick is to make the writing part efficient without knowing the internals of the vector impl. I guess there's no really easy way to read/write a hash-based vector more efficiently than just making sure the size is right, and then stuffing the read-from-disk values into the hash, so internals aren't critical. And as mentioned below, the constructors for SeqAcc and OrderedIntDoubleMapping both allow for an efficient read/write impl, as does DenseVector. Ok, I'm convinced that this should be good for now, until we get to the happy Avro-future. -jake
