[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12592416#action_12592416
]
Shravan Matthur Narayanamurthy commented on PIG-161:
----------------------------------------------------
Replies to Pi's comments on incr5.patch:
Thanks for the comments Pi.
1) I initially designed it to be just a normal class with recursive functions.
But I figured, there are operators that need special handling and hence thought
that instead of a long chain of if/elses, the visitor pattern might suit well.
I understand that it is a bit more expensive but I thought it should not matter
much given that the code is a bit more clearer. Do you have any particular
reasons that make it unsuitable here? Alan can you please check this one?
2) My fault. The setMapDoneMultiple & setMapDoneSingle are differenct in that
one tests against >0 and the against >1. I need to modify the setMapDone method
to not have any checks.
> 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: arithmeticOperators.patch, incr2.patch, incr3.patch,
> incr4.patch, incr5.patch, MRCompilerTests_PlansAndOutputs.txt,
> Phy_AbsClass.patch, physicalOps.patch, physicalOps.patch, podistinct.patch,
> pogenerate.patch, pogenerate.patch, pogenerate.patch, posort.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.
