Re: some weird code
One thing about the VertexResolver. Doesn't it make more sense if the
interface is called VertexResolver and the default basic
implementation is called BasicVertexResolver?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi avery,
sorry forgot resolver was exported to user space. I ll consider this. About
your idea, it makes sense although I somehow I believe that if user space
messes up it s not our fault. Your solution though makes evrrybody happy.
Will implement this and send the separate patch. Thanks
On Friday, January 6, 2012, Avery Ching ach...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Claudio, answers inline:
On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
Hello,
I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
[line 1091]:
if (vertex != null) {
((MutableVertexI, V, E, M)
vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else if (originalVertex != null) {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
vertexResolver?
Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
/**
* A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
* zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
situations
* excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero or
more
* messages sent it to).
*
* @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
* initialize())
* @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
* @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or null if
none
* @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null if
none
* @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
exists
* it will be removed
*/
Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
by just removing that line? :)
Thanks
Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
though. Something like...
if (vertex != null) {
if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
throw new IllegalStateException(BasicRPCCommunications:
Illegal to set the vertex index differently from + vertexIndex);
if (originalVertex == null) {
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
}
What do you think?
Avery
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com
Re: some weird code
Given our changes to Vertex, I think so. +1
Avery
On 1/8/12 8:28 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
One thing about the VertexResolver. Doesn't it make more sense if the
interface is called VertexResolver and the default basic
implementation is called BasicVertexResolver?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi avery,
sorry forgot resolver was exported to user space. I ll consider this. About
your idea, it makes sense although I somehow I believe that if user space
messes up it s not our fault. Your solution though makes evrrybody happy.
Will implement this and send the separate patch. Thanks
On Friday, January 6, 2012, Avery Chingach...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Claudio, answers inline:
On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
Hello,
I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
[line 1091]:
if (vertex != null) {
((MutableVertexI, V, E, M)
vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else if (originalVertex != null) {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
vertexResolver?
Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
/**
* A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
* zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
situations
* excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero or
more
* messages sent it to).
*
* @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
*initialize())
* @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
* @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or null if
none
* @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null if
none
* @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
exists
* it will be removed
*/
Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
by just removing that line? :)
Thanks
Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
though. Something like...
if (vertex != null) {
if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
throw new IllegalStateException(BasicRPCCommunications:
Illegal to set the vertex index differently from + vertexIndex);
if (originalVertex == null) {
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
}
What do you think?
Avery
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com
some weird code
Hello,
I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
[line 1091]:
if (vertex != null) {
((MutableVertexI, V, E, M) vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else if (originalVertex != null) {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
vertexResolver?
Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
by just removing that line? :)
Thanks
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@gmail.com
Re: some weird code
Hi Claudio, answers inline:
On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
Hello,
I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
[line 1091]:
if (vertex != null) {
((MutableVertexI, V, E, M) vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else if (originalVertex != null) {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
vertexResolver?
Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
/**
* A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
* zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
situations
* excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero
or more
* messages sent it to).
*
* @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
*initialize())
* @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
* @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or
null if none
* @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null
if none
* @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
exists
* it will be removed
*/
Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
by just removing that line? :)
Thanks
Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
though. Something like...
if (vertex != null) {
if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
throw new
IllegalStateException(BasicRPCCommunications: Illegal to set the vertex
index differently from + vertexIndex);
if (originalVertex == null) {
partition.putVertex((BasicVertexI, V, E, M) vertex);
} else {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
}
What do you think?
Avery
