Yes. I think that you could eliminate most of the current pain of writable polymorphism at the moderate cost of code maintenance down the line as new kinds of vectors get invented. We could even change the deal later.
I wouldn't call this decorator so much as "generic writable" in that the writable itself understands how to accept different kinds of Vectors to write and how to reconstitute a smaller set of types of Vectors on reading. On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess I'm suggesting the polymorphism pain need not be very painful. > (No doubt it's all nicer with Avro, but that much can be separate.) > > VectorWritable is the one Writable used in all cases. > We have *Writable decorators, corresponding to *Vector, in a similar > hierarchy. > We have NamedVector decorating Vector. > > I submit that solves all known issues here pretty well? > enough that I should try it or is that giving it too much momentum? >
