[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12583672#action_12583672
]
Pi Song commented on PIG-161:
-----------------------------
Questions mixed with comments:-
- The proposal in wiki says "Make the model entirely push-based" but this
implementation is pull-based. What is the real direction on this?
- This comment is obvious. Those dummy type instances in POFilter can be made
static. If they are used all over the place, we should move them to a more
generic parent class.
- visit() should not throw ParseException. Look at PIG-169 for example. In some
cases we use visit later in the processing after parsing. If we expect
ParseException when parsing then we can just wrap in ParseException.
- Therefore doAllPredecessors() and doAllPredecessors() also should not throw
ParseException
- GreaterThanExpr, LessThanExpr, GTOrEqualToExpr, NotEqualToExpr + a few more
are 90% the same. Is it possible to have a common abstract class for them?
- This is subjective. The name depthFirst() for me is a bit mis-leading because
this specific depthFirst() doesn't walk over already seen nodes.
- From this "The input model assumes that it can either be taken from an
operator or can be attached directly to this operator" could you explain more
what attachinput and input in PhysicalOperator do?
> Rework physical plan
> --------------------
>
> Key: PIG-161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-161
> Project: Pig
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Alan Gates
> Assignee: Alan Gates
> Attachments: Phy_AbsClass.patch
>
>
> This bug tracks work to rework all of the physical operators as described in
> http://wiki.apache.org/pig/PigTypesFunctionalSpec
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
