mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Walter Gillett <walter_gill...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Mahout code coverage
Date Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:59:08 GMT
Sean,

Thanks for the guidance, I'll have another go at this-

Walter



________________________________
From: Sean Owen <srowen@gmail.com>
To: dev@mahout.apache.org
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 7:24:43 AM
Subject: Re: Mahout code coverage

The idea would be to move off of JobClient too, I believe. The running
theory is that we're trying to standardize on one approach, and about
half the code is using this thing inside Mahout called AbstractJob
that is the current way we're standardizing. It uses the 0.20.x APIs.

Updating anything to use that would be great, though it's a bit more
work. Just emulating the way it invokes jobs would be a step forward
if it moved off of the 0.19.x APIs.

You are right that some things that were deprecated are becoming
un-deprecated. My impression is that we're still "supposed" to be
migrating to 0.20.x APIs, even when using 0.21 and beyond. (We can't
use 0.21 just now, yes, in any event.)

I suggest it's still a worthy task since at the moment it's still
suboptimal to have different ways to run jobs.

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Walter Gillett <walter_gillett@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I looked into removing the use of JobConf, but looks like it's too early to do
> that. Removing JobConf from Mahout would require removing JobClient as well. 
In
> this email thread I see:
>



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