Mailing-List: contact mahout-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mahout-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:27:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Package Structure
From: Ted Dunning <tdunning@veoh.com>
To: <mahout-dev@lucene.apache.org>
Message-ID: <C3CDF8A6.37BEC%tdunning@veoh.com>
Thread-Topic: Package Structure
Thread-Index: AchoGeXJUZUuZpElT6GGfAJSZgDWlAAE0KS6
In-Reply-To: 
 <A5A01492DDFB8040B5E0D81EDED565825F93E7@SP-EXCHMBC.sp.corp.collab.net>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable


I wouldn't build out skeletons until somebody starts doing the code.  Pick
ONE algorithm and do it up and then document it as a sample.  Let the
implementers of various algorithms do their thing.

There is nothing worse to read than a whole lot of code that doesn't
actually do anything.


On 2/5/08 9:09 AM, "Jeff Eastman" <jeastman@collab.net> wrote:

> I'm looking at the package structure in SVN and it begs for additional
> structure. Something like the following seems obvious but needs discussio=
n
> since it involves naming conventions. I'd be happy to generate driver, ma=
p and
> reducer classes in Eclipse just to have some skeletons where real code co=
uld
> be added later, and also create similar structure in the test branch. It'=
s
> just administrative work, turning the crank, but somebody needs to do it =
and
> I'd like to volunteer.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> org.apache.mahout.
>=20
>   classification.
>=20
>     na=EFve_bayes.
>=20
>     svm.
>=20
>     neural_net
>=20
>   clustering.
>=20
>     k_means.
>=20
>     em.
>=20
>   regression.
>=20
>     lwlr.
>=20
>     lr.
>=20
>   dimension.
>=20
>     pca.
>=20
>     ica.
>=20
>     gda.
>=20
>   non_mr.
>=20
>     hmm.
>=20
>     rl.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Jeff
>=20