mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (MAHOUT-206) Separate and clearly label different SparseVector implementations
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:03:15 GMT
Well we do use AbstractVector.  Are you suggesting that we *not* have a
Vector interface
at all, and *only* have an abstract base class?  Similarly for Matrix?

  -jake

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> We should use abstract classes almost everywhere instead of interfaces to
> ease backward compatibility issues with user written extensions to Vectors
> and Matrices.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Grant Ingersoll (JIRA) <jira@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > It seems like there is still some commonality between the two
> > implementations (size, cardinality, etc.) that I think it would be
> > worthwhile to keep SparseVector as an abstract class which the other two
> > extend.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>

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