hama-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Jungblut <thomas.jungb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: BSP and BSPInterface API
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:56:29 GMT
Yes the naming is more than inconsistent.
I thought we are going to add constants (for example) to the BSPInterface,
so it isn't any more than just a marker interface.
I would just remove the BSPInterface. Or is there another reason for it to
be empty/existing?

2012/7/9 Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teofili@gmail.com>

> Hi all,
> I'd like to enhance our BSP API, the BSPInterface is currently useless as
> it's only used by BSP and not providing any method signature.
> So since we're meant to be backward compatibile, at least API wise, with
> other Hama 0.x versions I'd propose to move the BSP methods' signatures in
> the BSPInteracee and let the BSP class as it is (with no change on our most
> used class :P):
> Also I don't like the BSPInterface name, in the future I'd like more to
> have the BSPInterface just called BSP and the current BSP be called
> BSPBase/AbstractBSP but that should be done in a 1.0 version I think.
> Another option would be to just remove the BSPInterface class and let
> everything as it is in the BSP class, this would make sense but API wise
> it's usually nice to have a plain interface define all the methods
> contracts.
> What do you think?
> Regards,
> Tommaso

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