You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@giraph.apache.org by Claudio Martella <cl...@gmail.com> on 2012/01/06 17:25:25 UTC
some weird code
Hello,
I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
[line 1091]:
if (vertex != null) {
((MutableVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
} else if (originalVertex != null) {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
vertexResolver?
Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
by just removing that line? :)
Thanks
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.martella@gmail.com
Re: some weird code
Posted by Avery Ching <ac...@apache.org>.
Given our changes to Vertex, I think so. +1
Avery
On 1/8/12 8:28 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
> One thing about the VertexResolver. Doesn't it make more sense if the
> interface is called VertexResolver and the default basic
> implementation is called BasicVertexResolver?
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Claudio Martella
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi avery,
>> sorry forgot resolver was exported to user space. I ll consider this. About
>> your idea, it makes sense although I somehow I believe that if user space
>> messes up it s not our fault. Your solution though makes evrrybody happy.
>> Will implement this and send the separate patch. Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 6, 2012, Avery Ching<ac...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Claudio, answers inline:
>>>
>>> On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
>>>> while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
>>>> GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
>>>>
>>>> The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
>>>> BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
>>>> [line 1091]:
>>>> if (vertex != null) {
>>>> ((MutableVertex<I, V, E, M>)
>>>> vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
>>>> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
>>>> } else if (originalVertex != null) {
>>>> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
>>>> guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
>>>> setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
>>>> vertexResolver?
>>> Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
>>> resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
>>>
>>> /**
>>> * A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
>>> * zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
>>> situations
>>> * excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero or
>>> more
>>> * messages sent it to).
>>> *
>>> * @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
>>> * initialize())
>>> * @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
>>> * @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or null if
>>> none
>>> * @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null if
>>> none
>>> * @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
>>> exists
>>> * it will be removed
>>> */
>>>
>>>> Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
>>>> by just removing that line? :)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>> Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
>>> safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
>>> vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
>>> probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
>>> though. Something like...
>>>
>>> if (vertex != null) {
>>> if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
>>> throw new IllegalStateException("BasicRPCCommunications:
>>> Illegal to set the vertex index differently from " + vertexIndex);
>>> if (originalVertex == null) {
>>> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
>>> } else {
>>> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Avery
>>>
>> --
>> Claudio Martella
>> claudio.martella@gmail.com
>
>
Re: some weird code
Posted by Claudio Martella <cl...@gmail.com>.
One thing about the VertexResolver. Doesn't it make more sense if the
interface is called VertexResolver and the default basic
implementation is called BasicVertexResolver?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Claudio Martella
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi avery,
> sorry forgot resolver was exported to user space. I ll consider this. About
> your idea, it makes sense although I somehow I believe that if user space
> messes up it s not our fault. Your solution though makes evrrybody happy.
> Will implement this and send the separate patch. Thanks
>
>
> On Friday, January 6, 2012, Avery Ching <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Claudio, answers inline:
>>
>> On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
>>> while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
>>> GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
>>>
>>> The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
>>> BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
>>> [line 1091]:
>>> if (vertex != null) {
>>> ((MutableVertex<I, V, E, M>)
>>> vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
>>> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
>>> } else if (originalVertex != null) {
>>> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
>>> }
>>>
>>> First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
>>> guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
>>> setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
>>> vertexResolver?
>>
>> Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
>> resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
>>
>> /**
>> * A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
>> * zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
>> situations
>> * excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero or
>> more
>> * messages sent it to).
>> *
>> * @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
>> * initialize())
>> * @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
>> * @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or null if
>> none
>> * @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null if
>> none
>> * @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
>> exists
>> * it will be removed
>> */
>>
>>> Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
>>> by just removing that line? :)
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>> Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
>> safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
>> vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
>> probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
>> though. Something like...
>>
>> if (vertex != null) {
>> if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
>> throw new IllegalStateException("BasicRPCCommunications:
>> Illegal to set the vertex index differently from " + vertexIndex);
>> if (originalVertex == null) {
>> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
>> } else {
>> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
>> }
>> }
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Avery
>>
>
> --
> Claudio Martella
> claudio.martella@gmail.com
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.martella@gmail.com
Re: some weird code
Posted by Claudio Martella <cl...@gmail.com>.
Hi avery,
sorry forgot resolver was exported to user space. I ll consider this. About
your idea, it makes sense although I somehow I believe that if user space
messes up it s not our fault. Your solution though makes evrrybody happy.
Will implement this and send the separate patch. Thanks
On Friday, January 6, 2012, Avery Ching <ac...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Claudio, answers inline:
>
> On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
>> while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
>> GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
>>
>> The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
>> BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
>> [line 1091]:
>> if (vertex != null) {
>> ((MutableVertex<I, V, E, M>)
vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
>> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
>> } else if (originalVertex != null) {
>> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
>> }
>>
>> First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
>> guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
>> setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
>> vertexResolver?
>
> Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
>
> /**
> * A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
> * zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
situations
> * excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero or
more
> * messages sent it to).
> *
> * @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
> * initialize())
> * @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
> * @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or null
if none
> * @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null if
none
> * @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
exists
> * it will be removed
> */
>
>> Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
>> by just removing that line? :)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
though. Something like...
>
> if (vertex != null) {
> if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
> throw new IllegalStateException("BasicRPCCommunications:
Illegal to set the vertex index differently from " + vertexIndex);
> if (originalVertex == null) {
> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
> } else {
> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
> }
> }
>
> What do you think?
>
> Avery
>
--
Claudio Martella
claudio.martella@gmail.com
Re: some weird code
Posted by Avery Ching <ac...@apache.org>.
Hi Claudio, answers inline:
On 1/6/12 8:25 AM, Claudio Martella wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I hope somebody can shed some light on a piece of code i'm looking at
> while working on GIRAPH-45 (and this code is also the object of
> GIRAPH-95, so we'd probably get two birds with one stone here).
>
> The code is taking care of vertex resolving in
> BasicRPCCommunication::prepareSuperstep():
> [line 1091]:
> if (vertex != null) {
> ((MutableVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex).setVertexId(vertexIndex);
> partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
> } else if (originalVertex != null) {
> partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
> }
>
> First, vertex cannot be null as it's resolved by vertexRevolver, but i
> guess it's a sanity check. But the real question is: why would you
> setVertex() considering it's been already initialized correctly in
> vertexResolver?
Actually it can be null. Since user's can implement their own vertex
resolver, they are allowed to return null from the javadoc.
/**
* A vertex may have been removed, created zero or more times and had
* zero or more messages sent to it. This method will handle all
situations
* excluding the normal case (a vertex already exists and has zero
or more
* messages sent it to).
*
* @param vertexId Vertex id (can be used for {@link BasicVertex}'s
* initialize())
* @param vertex Original vertex or null if none
* @param vertexChanges Changes that happened to this vertex or
null if none
* @param messages messages received in the last superstep or null
if none
* @return Vertex to be returned, if null, and a vertex currently
exists
* it will be removed
*/
> Am I missing something or did I just realize that GIRAPH-95 is solved
> by just removing that line? :)
>
> Thanks
>
Well, not sure about that. The set is done there I think to ensure
safety. Here's the issue: Suppose that the resolve() doesn't set the
vertex id correctly (i.e. in this partition). That would be a bug and
probably cause issues. Probably this should be changed to be a check
though. Something like...
if (vertex != null) {
if (vertex.getVertexId().equals(vertexIndex)) {
throw new
IllegalStateException("BasicRPCCommunications: Illegal to set the vertex
index differently from " + vertexIndex);
if (originalVertex == null) {
partition.putVertex((BasicVertex<I, V, E, M>) vertex);
} else {
partition.removeVertex(originalVertex.getVertexId());
}
}
What do you think?
Avery