I mean wrapping Vector in a NamedVector. It seems like a good step forward, even as I agree that it probably isn't even needed. Since I'm the one ripping up the floor-boards here to do some plumbing, seems like it should fall on me to put things back into a similar working state with NamedVector. Those with more knowledge of the consumers of this thing can then think about the structure you propose, which does sound nicer, and perhaps delete NamedVector.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which one is "this"? Wrapping Vector impls into a > NamedVector/LabeledVector, > or seeing if we even need the label *inside* of the Vector itself, and > instead > just having those live in the "key" part of the key-value pair in hadoop, > like > DistributedRowMatrix has it?