On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org> wrote: > OK, that's reasonable. I did see the reply and my response was to put up a > patch so we can discuss it concretely instead of have a theoretical > discussion.
Your JIRA just repeated the same point, and appeared to disregard my follow-up. It looks like the stated motivation for the patch was in fact not correct. (Yonik provided a different, decent rationalization for it.) I think it was right to -1 the patch. and I don't think you should have suggested this was an invalid or extreme thing to do. Opening a JIRA, which suggests you think there's consensus to make a change, seems like the out-of-place thing. > These 40 lines could probably be a lot less if we didn't have 2 different > classes to track the same two things: id and score (SimilarUser and > RecommendedItem). If that were gone, then we could just have one extension > of the PQ. Likewise for ItemItemSimilarity and UserUserSimilarity container. > Since that's all hidden from the user, there really is no need for the > distinction. This is an orthogonal point -- what's it have to do with your proposed patch? I think the patch is fine, but don't think this bolsters the argument that it's a big simplification. You can overload, say, SimilarUser and GenericRecommendedItem. They're both an ID and a floating-point value. What do you call it -- EntityScore? It probably harms readability ever so slightly, especially as it also has to implement the RecommendedItem interface. toString() would change. I don't object, I don't really think it helps.
