crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel Reid <gabriel.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Compiler warnings in Crunch
Date Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:23:07 GMT
Ok, down to 807 warnings (from about 1000) by my count -- I'll start
cleaning up the raw type/generics warnings as well.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Okay. I am working on a big compiler warnings cleanup around DoFn
> serialization right now that will (hopefully) integrate cleanly for
> you guys.
>
> J
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Chu <robert@wibidata.com> wrote:
>> +1 to fixing compiler warnings. I would prefer proper usage of the wildcard
>> type to just suppressing the warnings. I think writing PCollection<?> just
>> means a PCollection parameterized on any type which holds the same meaning
>> as PCollection, but PCollection<?>, to me, makes it clearer that
>> PCollection is not a concrete type.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Josh Wills <jwills@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Gabriel Reid <gabriel.reid@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > As prep for some other development I was going to do in Crunch, I was
>>> > considering cleaning up some (or all) of the compiler warnings that
>>> > are currently occurring (they make the right-side search ribbon in
>>> > Eclipse almost unusable right now).
>>> >
>>> > A significant portion of the compiler warnings are raw type generics
>>> > warnings, i.e. "xxx is a raw type. References to xxx should be
>>> > parameterized", where we're doing general operations with PCollections
>>> > and similar objects without knowing anything about their generic
>>> > types.
>>>
>>> There are also the warnings about not adding serialization UIDs to the
>>> built-in DoFns, which irritate me and are useless in the context of
>>> Crunch. Happy to volunteer to go around and add UID = 1; code all over
>>> the place if there are no objections.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > We could add wildcards (i.e. PCollection<?>) to each of these generic
>>> > objects in the methods where the warnings are occurring -- this would
>>> > be my preferred thing to do. On the other hand, I think that adding
>>> > wildcards make the code more difficult to read, while having any kind
>>> > of real added value.
>>> >
>>> > The other option we could take (less preferable to me) is to use
>>> > @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") on some or all of the affected methods
>>> > -- it'll leave the code in a more readable state, but I'm not that
>>> > wild about just suppressing warnings.
>>>
>>> I'm a 0 on the approach here-- I always have a hard time getting the
>>> <?> stuff to compile when I'm casting the result, which is what often
>>> happens in Writables.java and Avros.java, but I agree that a working
>>> version of the wildcards is preferable to suppress warnings. We might
>>> say that we prefer <?> but add in SuppressWarnings when there is no
>>> other option for what we're trying to do.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Anyone else care to weigh in on this?
>>> >
>>> > - Gabriel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Director of Data Science
>>> Cloudera
>>> Twitter: @josh_wills
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera
> Twitter: @josh_wills

Mime
View raw message