Thanks for the quick response. VectorWritable looks like exactly what I need, but it doesn't extend Vector, so there needs to be work done on my part for deeper serialization.
Cheers, Ivan On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Anand Avati <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think Vector and Matrix were ever declares Serializable. Please > look at VectorWritable and MatrixWritable classes in mrlegacy module. Both > the Spark bindings and H2O bindings use these *Writable classes for > shipping matrix and vector over the wire. You can even look at > > https://github.com/avati/mahout/blob/MAHOUT-1500/h2o/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/h2obindings/drm/H2OBCast.java > as > a reference for how to do it. > > Thanks > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Ivan Brusic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am in the midst of upgrading our Mahout library in order to take > > advantage of all the excellent recent additions. > > > > As far as I can tell, the library was based off a snapshot of 0.5. The > code > > does not use any of the Mahout algorithms, just a few of the data > > structures such as DenseVector. The existing code builds a Java object > > which is then serialized and distributed. After upgrading to 0.9, I > noticed > > I was no longer able to deserialize objects since DenseVector is > > not Serializable. After inspect the old jar, it seems like AbstractVector > > was declared Serializable. > > > > So either someone at my company added serialization to the Mahout classes > > or they were Serializable at some point. I am assuming the former. Is > this > > the case? I looked at the commits and at no point was anything > > Serializable. > > > > Since the classes are not Serializable and no longer inherit from > Writable, > > is there an existing strategy to output Mahout structures? Would hate to > > write wrapper classes or once again modify the source. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ivan > > >
