On 11.10.2011 Lance Norskog wrote: > The Hadoop people said "we'll change whatever we feel like" and look where > that led to :)
I think we have two conflicting goals here: On the one hand users who have Mahout in production need stability - in terms of interfaces, but even more so in terms of file formats for trained models, input vectors and such. On the other hand we as a project need room for experimentation and innovation. I think marking experimental interfaces is a nice compromise of making it explicit to users which parts they can rely on but also making it as simple as using the latest release or even trunk for those that want to be early-adopters. It could be a first step to a 1.0 release we all have been looking forward to for so long: Makes obvious which parts of Mahout still need caring hands for cleanup, refactoring and improved integratability (Thanks to those who have spend time on these tasks lately.). In addition we need to think about what kind of backwards compatibility guarantees we want to give to users - might make sense to steal some of Lucene's knowledge in that area as well. I think deciding on whether to use abstract classes vs. interfaces may well turn out to be our smallest questionmark. Isabel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
