Details
-
Improvement
-
Status: Open
-
Major
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
None
-
None
Description
The overall design of value vectors has become unclear and inconsistent with additions from multiple contributors over the time. Also we need proper documentation for the abstractions made for consistently communicating with developers.
There are many instances that indicate possible design issues.
For instance, ValueVector implements Iterator<ValueVector>. This seems to assume all vectors are somewhat hierarchical. This does not truly capture scalar vectors as they have no child.
Similarly, RepeatedVector has the following interface definition:
interface RepeatedVector {
RepeatedFixedWidthVector.RepeatedAccessor getAccessor()
}
Yet, RepeatedFixedWidthVector implements RepeatedVector as follows
interface RepeatedFixedWidthVector extends ValueVector, RepeatedVector { interface RepeatedAccessor extends Accessor {...} interface RepeatedMutator extends Mutator {...} }
A super-type that is aware of its sub-type hints a need for re-design.
Examples could be multiplied here: some method names are not self-explaining or wrongly named or seems to be misplaced. There are couple of more places where design is not capturing the nature of vectors such like missing abstractions for Repeated vs Composite vectors. We should consider a design refactoring.
This is an umbrella issue for tracking ValueVector design refactoring.
Attachments
1.
|
Clean-up ValueVector interface |
|
Resolved | Hanifi Gunes |
2.
|
Create an abstraction for repeated value vectors. |
|
Resolved | Hanifi Gunes |
3.
|
Eliminate redundant #load methods and unit-test loading & exporting of vectors |
|
Resolved | Hanifi Gunes |
4.
|
Create an abstraction for composite value vectors |
|
Open | Unassigned |
5.
|
Refactor repeated map to be structured like other repeated types |
|
Open | Unassigned |
6.
|
Composite vectors should rely on VectorContainer for maintaining child vectors |
|
Open | Unassigned |