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.
>

Reply via email to