giraph-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Reisman <apache.mail...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GIRAPH-684: Remove Writable Requirement?
Date Sun, 29 Sep 2013 18:30:44 GMT
I am +1 for options two or three. If we go with #2, better to do it now and
get the distruption for users over with early in Giraph's history.


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Claudio Martella <
claudio.martella@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Nitay,
>
> I'm +1 for (2). It would remove another explicit leakage of the Hadoop API
> from Giraph. Although it makes clear that the Vertex signature does need to
> support serialization, I agree that it is kind of all over the place (with
> good and bad results, like checkpointing and ooc coming more easily).
> At this point though, Giraph is more mature to take a different path in the
> face of the initial advantage of having Writable API.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Nitay Joffe <nitayj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Friends,
> >
> > I have a diff up that substantially changes our API,
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GIRAPH-684, which I would like to
> > get people's vote on.
> >
> > Basically the question is whether we think that forcing the graph types
> > (I,V,E,M1,M2) to be Writable/Comparable is the right thing to do.
> > This requirement means we cannot easily externalize how a type gets
> > serialized (for example if you wanted to test out different ways of
> > serializing an integer).
> > It also makes it more difficult to implement things like the Jython
> > integration because every Jython object must be constantly
> > wrapped/unwrapped in a Writable wrapper in order to conform to Giraph.
> > Personally I have never liked the fact that we have serialization tied to
> > the object in terms of code design patterns, but that is just me.
> > The diff I have up removes the requirement of IVEMM being Writable, and
> > allows you to specify, via a separate parameter, the serializer to use
> for
> > each type. Note that it is completely backwards compatible. That is, if
> we
> > detect that you are actually using a Writable then we stick in an
> internal
> > WritableSerializer (which just calls readFields()/write()) and you do not
> > need to specify anything.
> >
> > The major con of removing the Writable interface is it makes things less
> > clear for our users. So, the potential solutions to vote on here are:
> >
> > 1) Leave things as they are. Let Jython be ugly. Serialization stays tied
> > to the object. No external serializers.
> > 2) Remove Writable everywhere (as diff currently does). Explain to users
> > that they can use Writable or define their own Serializer.
> > 3) Remove Writable _internally_ only. Keep the outermost-facing Java API
> > (Computation, VertexInputFormat, etc) still allowing Writable only, but
> > internally no Writable required. This allows Jython and any expert users
> to
> > work with the more internal types that have no type restrictions yet
> leaves
> > our Java API Writable. Don't mention external serializers to average
> users
> > so our story stays the same. Essentially this option makes things a bit
> > more confusing for developers instead of users.
> >
> > We have discussed this at Facebook (Avery, Alessandro, Maja and myself)
> > for a while, and would like to get your opinions as well since this is a
> > large change.
> > What do folks think? Please weigh in.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Nitay
>
>
>
>
> --
>    Claudio Martella
>    claudio.martella@gmail.com
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message