Ay of course, forgot you were using this version. Yes that should be
corrected, will do in SVN. Ah the peril and copy and paste... actually
I think we can perhaps merge the two classes.

FileDataModel itself already, as of recently, will recognize lines
like "123,ABC" (versus "123,ABC,1") and interpret them as
"BooleanPreference" objects. This is half of what you need. You also
need it to generate BooleanPrefUser objects too in this case. I think
I can do that. I think then that the "Boolean" version of
FileDataModel and GenericDataModel can simply be removed. Does that
square with your needs / thoughts?

Sean

On Apr 14, 2009 11:11 PM, "Otis Gospodnetic" <[email protected]> wrote:


Ah, I think I found it in BooleanPrefUserFileDataModel, Sean:

 private final class RefreshTimerTask extends TimerTask {

  �...@override
   public void run() {
     if (loaded) {
       long newModified = dataFile.lastModified();
       if (newModified > lastModified) {
         log.debug("File has changed; reloading...");
         lastModified = newModified;
         reload();
       }
     }
   }
 }


....and I just managed to comment it out and commit it accidentally :)

It looks like that was the last remaining instance of this "relic":

$ asf-mahout/core$ ffjg RefreshTimerTask
./src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/cf/taste/impl/model/file/BooleanPrefUserFileDataModel.java://
   timer.schedule(new RefreshTimerTask(), RELOAD_CHECK_INTERVAL_MS,
RELOAD_CHECK_INTERVAL_MS);
./src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/cf/taste/impl/model/file/BooleanPrefUserFileDataModel.java://
 private final class RefreshTimerTask extends TimerTask {

It looks like that indeed got rid of the background refresher thread
and now I'm left to my own explicit refresh calls.

Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
----- Original Message ---- > ...

> To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:31:34 PM 
> > Subject: Re: Shutti...

> I'm moving this to mahout-user. > > It looks like that Refresher background 
> thread is still there...

> > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:58:46 
> > PM > > Subject: Re: S...

Reply via email to