On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that it'd be good to kind of finalize the Vector stuff. I > don't think it's reasonable for users to expect data output by 0.3 to > be compatible with 0.4 though, so wouldn't worry about that. > > I think we're on the verge of wanting a proper serialization system > like Avro for vectors here -- but not quite. About 3 flags describe > any vector: denseness, sequential access-ness, and whether it has a > name, if you want to unify that too. A simple byte of bit flags seems > not so bad, if that's about as complex as this will ever get. > > What about label bindings, which I brought up earlier? > Actually, I cannot find where labels are used except in tests. They're > not serialized or cloned consistently. Are these used? Seems like the > reason to package them together would be serialization but that's not > it. > Its used in clustering to generate clusterid -> point id. Also to be used in classification(by end of this summer) to keep class labels. > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Let more comments come in before tearing it down. This affects > everything. > > We *have to *get it right by the next release, not necessarily today or > > tomorrow. Or that would kind of kill the whole 0.3 users. Once fixed, we > can > > provide a convertor to convert to the new representation. >