[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-1463?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16154471#comment-16154471
]
Bryan Cutler commented on ARROW-1463:
-------------------------------------
+1 on fixing this up also, however there are already quite a lot of base
classes and interfaces. [~jnadeau], following our other discussion from
ARROW-1361, would it be possible to make {{FixedVector}} and {{VariableVector}}
generic classes that take a ArrowType as type parameter and then specialize for
types as needed? {{NullableValueVectors}} could remain a template, possibly
simplified, or use a base class as mentioned above. I'm not entirely sure how
feasible this is though..
> [JAVA] Restructure ValueVector hierarchy to minimize compile-time generated
> code
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-1463
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-1463
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jacques Nadeau
> Assignee: SIDDHARTH TEOTIA
>
> The templates used in the java package are very high mainteance and the if
> conditions are hard to track. As started in the discussion here:
> https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/1012, I'd like to propose that we modify
> the structure of the internal value vectors and code generation dynamics.
> Create new abstract base vectors:
> BaseFixedVector
> BaseVariableVector
> BaseNullableVector
> For each of these, implement all the basic functionality of a vector without
> using templating.
> Evaluate whether to use code generation to generate specific specializations
> of this functionality for each type where needed for performance purposes
> (probably constrained to mutator and accessor set/get methods). Giant and
> complex if conditions in the templates are actually worse from my perspective
> than a small amount of hand written duplicated code since templates are much
> harder to work with.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
