Li,
This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous email. I think if we
have the opportunity (which we have now), we should see if complex template
code like this can be removed unless it is absolutely necessary. This is
why I was suggesting if we can just not have any code generated classes.
Thanks,
Siddharth
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Li Jin <ice.xell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Siddharth,
>
> Thanks for the update. Without really sit down and do the prototype, my
> opinions can be wrong. But,
>
> I think a lot of the complication are code like this:
>
> <#elseif minor.class == "Decimal">
> public void get(int index, ${minor.class}Holder holder) {
> holder.start = index * ${type.width};
> holder.buffer = data;
> holder.scale = scale;
> holder.precision = precision;
> }
>
> The fact that we have to have a special block for Decimal is eyesore to me.
> And it's not really shared with any other classes.
>
> Things like these are not great but might be ok?
>
> <#if type.width == 4>
> public long getTwoAsLong(int index) {
> return data.getLong(index * ${type.width});
> }
>
> </#if>
>
> Sorry I couldn't provide too much useful feedback without digging into the
> template, but this is any general feeling about these templates - too many
> "if" to types like "Interval" "Decimal" "Timestamp"
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Siddharth Teotia <siddha...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am in the middle of a simple prototype that has the basic
> implementation
> > of BaseFixedWidthVector, FixedValueVectorsPrototype.java (template) to
> > generate a simple IntVector using the proposal mentioned in the document.
> >
> > I have realized that even though the LOCs in existing templates are
> reduced
> > by 30-40% since bunch of common/basic functionality is moved to super
> class
> > BaseFixedWidthVector, the major source of pain (giant and complex if
> > conditions) associated with code generation is in accessor and mutator
> > which is still part of templates.
> >
> > I am trying to err on the side of not using templates at all since I feel
> > there is not much of gain from this refactoring project if the code in
> > templates is still complex and requires regular addition/modification
> when
> > adding new types. We are probably better off writing multiple sub classes
> > (with duplicate code as applicable)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > I can create a PR from this prototype code once it in reasonable shape
> for
> > review but was wondering if people have any opinion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sidd
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Siddharth Teotia <siddha...@dremio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > You should have received an invitation to edit the following document.
> > > Please feel free to add comments or additional content.
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rl0PK5OnbQAnFUrhd4bQPtP0u7930
> > > sBKKaiyggOY7t4/edit
> > >
> > > Let me know if the document is not editable.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Siddharth
> > >
> >
>
