[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13542150#comment-13542150
]
Ted Dunning commented on MAHOUT-1135:
-------------------------------------
{quote}
Also, the existing writables don't even seem to match the vector classes
completely.
For instance, org.apache.mahout.clustering.classify.WeightedVectorWritable
actually only has a weight (not an index as WeightedVector).
{quote}
As Sean points out, the WeightedVectorWritable appears to be an unfortunate
collision in the obvious naming of (slightly) different concepts.
> Unify decorated vectors in DecoratedVector<T>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-1135
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1135
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: Math
> Affects Versions: 1.0
> Reporter: Dan Filimon
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: improvement, vector
>
> I'm finding the current Vector classes in Mahout a bit confusing.
> The vector implementation are just fine, I'm talking more about the decorated
> vectors:
> WeightedVector
> MatrixSlice
> NamedVector
> I propose using a single DecoratedVector<T> type that can easily be extended.
> For example, right now MatrixSlice doesn't even implement the Vector
> interface.
> So,
> WeightedVector -> DecoratedVector<Pair<Integer, Double>>
> MatrixSlice -> DecoratedVector<Integer>
> NamedVector -> DecoratedVector<String>
> We could even keep the names (maybe changing MatrixSlice to something like
> IndexedVector though?) by extending DecoratedVector<T>.
> I'd be willing to fix this if people think it's a good idea.
> What about it? :)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
