Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[SPARK-7823] Refactor Strategy, Batch, FixedPoint out of class RuleExecutor[T] #6349

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

evacchi
Copy link
Contributor

@evacchi evacchi commented May 22, 2015

  • Add companion object
  • Add imports where necessary

  * Add companion object
  * Add imports where necessary
@rxin
Copy link
Contributor

rxin commented May 22, 2015

Jenkins, test this please.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 22, 2015

Test build #33354 has finished for PR 6349 at commit 8457feb.

  • This patch fails Scala style tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
    • abstract class Strategy
    • case class Batch[TreeType <: TreeNode[_]](name: String, strategy: Strategy, rules: Rule[TreeType]*)
    • abstract class RuleExecutor[TreeType <: TreeNode[_]] extends Logging

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor

rxin commented May 30, 2015

Jenkins, retest this please.

@rxin
Copy link
Contributor

rxin commented May 30, 2015

Is this change identical to #6319 ?

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented May 30, 2015

Test build #33804 has finished for PR 6349 at commit b09fd68.

  • This patch fails Spark unit tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds the following public classes (experimental):
    • abstract class Strategy
    • case class Batch[TreeType <: TreeNode[_]](
    • abstract class RuleExecutor[TreeType <: TreeNode[_]] extends Logging

@evacchi
Copy link
Contributor Author

evacchi commented May 30, 2015

Not exactly, this version uses a companion object. Same purpose, though
Il 30/mag/2015 09:31, "Reynold Xin" notifications@github.com ha scritto:

Is this change identical to #6319
#6319 ?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6349 (comment).

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@marmbrus
Copy link
Contributor

marmbrus commented Sep 3, 2015

Hi @evacchi, thanks for working on this. Can we close this issue until you have time to bring it up to date? It would also be good to debate this vs #6319 on the JIRA.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 804a012 Sep 4, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants