rsions. The class itself is simple. But I agree adding java
> setters would be nice.
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Soren Macbeth wrote:
> > There is a JavaSparkContext, but no JavaSparkConf object. I know
> SparkConf
> > is new in 0.9.x.
> >
> > Is t
This class was made to be "java friendly" so that we wouldn't have to
use two versions. The class itself is simple. But I agree adding java
setters would be nice.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Soren Macbeth wrote:
> There is a JavaSparkContext, but no JavaSparkConf object
There is a JavaSparkContext, but no JavaSparkConf object. I know SparkConf
is new in 0.9.x.
Is there a plan to add something like this to the java api?
It's rather a bother to have things like setAll take a scala
Traverable[String String] when using SparkConf from the java api.
At a mi
