Well if you went the way of NamedVector for the current issue (the failing of TestFuzzyKMeans), you'd have to change the signature of the clusterer to take NamedVector so you could get access to the name, or else cast it, and that would get reversed as soon as we had the clusters act on the same structures as the matrices...
-jake On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >
