`case object` inside an `object` doesn't show up in Java. This is the
minimal code I found to make everything show up correctly in both
Scala and Java:
sealed abstract class StorageLevel // cannot be a trait
object StorageLevel {
private[this] case object _MemoryOnly extends StorageLevel
final val MemoryOnly: StorageLevel = _MemoryOnly
private[this] case object _DiskOnly extends StorageLevel
final val DiskOnly: StorageLevel = _DiskOnly
}
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Patrick Wendell <pwend...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like #4 as well and agree with Aaron's suggestion.
>
> - Patrick
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Aaron Davidson <ilike...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm cool with #4 as well, but make sure we dictate that the values should
>> be defined within an object with the same name as the enumeration (like we
>> do for StorageLevel). Otherwise we may pollute a higher namespace.
>>
>> e.g. we SHOULD do:
>>
>> trait StorageLevel
>> object StorageLevel {
>> case object MemoryOnly extends StorageLevel
>> case object DiskOnly extends StorageLevel
>> }
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Michael Armbrust <mich...@databricks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> #4 with a preference for CamelCaseEnums
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Joseph Bradley <jos...@databricks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > another vote for #4
>>> > People are already used to adding "()" in Java.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Stephen Boesch <java...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > #4 but with MemoryOnly (more scala-like)
>>> > >
>>> > > http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/naming-conventions.html
>>> > >
>>> > > Constants, Values, Variable and Methods
>>> > >
>>> > > Constant names should be in upper camel case. That is, if the member is
>>> > > final, immutable and it belongs to a package object or an object, it
>>> may
>>> > be
>>> > > considered a constant (similar to Java'sstatic final members):
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > 1. object Container {
>>> > > 2. val MyConstant = ...
>>> > > 3. }
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > 2015-03-04 17:11 GMT-08:00 Xiangrui Meng <men...@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi all,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There are many places where we use enum-like types in Spark, but in
>>> > > > different ways. Every approach has both pros and cons. I wonder
>>> > > > whether there should be an "official" approach for enum-like types in
>>> > > > Spark.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 1. Scala's Enumeration (e.g., SchedulingMode, WorkerState, etc)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > * All types show up as Enumeration.Value in Java.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/java/org/apache/spark/scheduler/SchedulingMode.html
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 2. Java's Enum (e.g., SaveMode, IOMode)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > * Implementation must be in a Java file.
>>> > > > * Values doesn't show up in the ScalaDoc:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/scala/#org.apache.spark.network.util.IOMode
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 3. Static fields in Java (e.g., TripletFields)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > * Implementation must be in a Java file.
>>> > > > * Doesn't need "()" in Java code.
>>> > > > * Values don't show up in the ScalaDoc:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/scala/#org.apache.spark.graphx.TripletFields
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 4. Objects in Scala. (e.g., StorageLevel)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > * Needs "()" in Java code.
>>> > > > * Values show up in both ScalaDoc and JavaDoc:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/scala/#org.apache.spark.storage.StorageLevel$
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/api/java/org/apache/spark/storage/StorageLevel.html
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It would be great if we have an "official" approach for this as well
>>> > > > as the naming convention for enum-like values ("MEMORY_ONLY" or
>>> > > > "MemoryOnly"). Personally, I like 4) with "MEMORY_ONLY". Any
>>> thoughts?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best,
>>> > > > Xiangrui
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
>>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
