spark-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean R. Owen (Jira)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SPARK-29212) Add common classes without using JVM backend
Date Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:14:00 GMT


Sean R. Owen commented on SPARK-29212:

I don't have a strong opinion on it. I'd make it all consistent first, before changing to
another consistent state. Removing truly no-op classes is OK, unless we can foresee a use
for them later. Pyspark does mean to wrap the JVM implemenatation, so "Java" related classes
aren't inherently wrong even as part of a developer API. Refactoring is good, but weigh it
against breaking existing extensions of these classes, even in Spark 3.

> Add common classes without using JVM backend
> --------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SPARK-29212
>                 URL:
>             Project: Spark
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: ML, PySpark
>    Affects Versions: 3.0.0
>            Reporter: zhengruifeng
>            Priority: Major
> Copied from [].
>  Maciej's *Concern*:
> *Use cases for public ML type hierarchy*
>  * Add Python-only Transformer implementations:
>  * 
>  ** I am Python user and want to implement pure Python ML classifier without providing
JVM backend.
>  ** I want this classifier to be meaningfully positioned in the existing type hierarchy.
>  ** However I have access only to high level classes ({{Estimator}}, {{Model}}, {{MLReader}}
/ {{MLReadable}}).
>  * Run time parameter validation for both user defined (see above) and existing class
>  * 
>  ** I am a library developer who provides functions that are meaningful only for specific
categories of {{Estimators}} - here classifiers.
>  ** I want to validate that user passed argument is indeed a classifier:
>  *** For built-in objects using "private" type hierarchy is not really satisfying (actually,
what is the rationale behind making it "private"? If the goal is Scala API parity, and Scala
counterparts are public, shouldn't these be too?).
>  ** For user defined objects I can:
>  *** Use duck typing (on {{setRawPredictionCol}} for classifier, on {{numClasses}} for
classification model) but it hardly satisfying.
>  *** Provide parallel non-abstract type hierarchy ({{Classifier}} or {{PythonClassifier}}
and so on) and require users to implement such interfaces. That however would require separate
logic for checking for built-in and and user-provided classes.
>  *** Provide parallel abstract type hierarchy, register all existing built-in classes
and require users to do the same.
>  Clearly these are not satisfying solutions as they require either defensive programming
or reinventing the same functionality for different 3rd party APIs.
>  * Static type checking
>  * 
>  ** I am either end user or library developer and want to use PEP-484 annotations to
indicate components that require classifier or classification model.
>  * 
>  ** Currently I can provide only imprecise annotations, [such as|]
>  def setClassifier(self, value: Estimator[M]) -> OneVsRest: ...
>  or try to narrow things down using structural subtyping:
>  class Classifier(Protocol, Estimator[M]): def setRawPredictionCol(self, value: str)
-> Classifier: ... class Classifier(Protocol, Model): def setRawPredictionCol(self, value:
str) -> Model: ... def numClasses(self) -> int: ...
> (...)
>  * First of all nothing in the original API indicated this. On the contrary, the original
API clearly suggests that non-Java path is supported, by providing base classes (Params, Transformer,
Estimator, Model, ML \{Reader,Writer}, ML\{Readable,Writable}) as well as Java specific implementations
(JavaParams, JavaTransformer, JavaEstimator, JavaModel, JavaML\{Reader,Writer}, JavaML
> {Readable,Writable}
> ).
>  * Furthermore authoritative (IMHO) and open Python ML extensions exist (spark-sklearn
is one of these, but if I recall correctly spark-deep-learning provides so pure-Python utilities).
Personally I've seen quite a lot of private implementations, but that's just anecdotal evidence.
> Let us assume for the sake of argument that above observations are irrelevant. I will
argue that having complete, public type hierarchy is still desired:
>  * Two out three use cases I described, can narrowed down to Java implementation only,
though there are less compelling if we do that.
>  * More importantly, public type hierarchy with Java specific extensions, is
standard. There is no reason to treat this specific case as an exception, especially when
the implementations, is far from utilitarian (for example implementation-free JavaClassifierParams
and JavaProbabilisticClassifierParams save, as for now, no practical purpose whatsoever).
> Maciej's *Proposal*:
> {code:python}
> Python ML hierarchy should reflect Scala hierarchy first (@srowen), i.e.
> class ClassifierParams: ...
> class Predictor(Estimator,PredictorParams):
>     def setLabelCol(self, value): ...
>     def setFeaturesCol(self, value): ...
>     def setPredictionCol(self, value): ...
> class Classifier(Predictor, ClassifierParams):
>     def setRawPredictionCol(self, value): ...
> class PredictionModel(Model,PredictorParams):
>     def setFeaturesCol(self, value): ...
>     def setPredictionCol(self, value): ...
>     def numFeatures(self): ...
>     def predict(self, value): ...
> {code}
> and JVM interop should extend from this hierarchy, i.e.
>  {code:python}
> class JavaPredictionModel(PredictionModel): ...
>  {code}
> In other words it should be consistent with existing approach, where we have ABCs reflecting
Scala API (Transformer, Estimator, Model) and so on, and Java* variants are their subclasses.
> *Formally*:
>  * Python ML type hierarchy should reflect Scala counterpart, as long as it makes sense
give differences between languages (also minor changes are required due to specifics of the
MRO algorithm). This can reduce development burden, overhead of porting user application between
both languages and overall consistency of the project.
>  * Classes which are public in Scala should be "public" and implementation independent
in Python. No {{Java}} prefix should be used.
>  * Classes which are {{private}} or {{private[ml]}} in Scala, should be explicitly marked
as internal, using PEP8 syntax. i.e
> {code:python}
> class _JavaClassifierParams(HasRawPredictionCol, JavaPredictorParams):
>     """
>     Java Classifier Params for classification tasks.
>     """
>     pass
>  {code}
> not
> {code:python}
> class JavaClassifierParams(HasRawPredictionCol, JavaPredictorParams):
>     """
>     (Private) Java Classifier Params for classification tasks.
>     """
>     pass
>  {code}
> * High level Java-specific mixins ({{JavaEstimator}}, {{JavaModel}}, {{JavaParams}},
{{JavaPredictor}}, {{JavaPredictorParams}}, {{JavaPredictionModel}}, {{JavaWrapper}}) should
be used only if wrapper-specific implementation is needed and mixed into concrete implementations
only at the bottom of the type hierarchy, i.e.
> {code:python}
> class PredictorParams(HasLabelCol, HasFeaturesCol, HasPredictionCol): ...
> class ClassifierParams(HasRawPredictionCol, PredictorParams): ...
> class PredictionModel(Model, PredictorParams): ...
> class ClassificationModel(PredictionModel, ClassifierParams):
> class ProbabilisticClassifierParams(HasProbabilityCol, HasThresholds, ClassifierParams):
> class ProbabilisticClassificationModel(ClassificationModel, ProbabilisticClassifierParams):
> class LogisticRegressionModel(JavaModel, ProbabilisticClassificationModel, JavaMLWritable,
JavaMLReadable, HasTrainingSummary): ...
> {code}
> not
> {code:python}
> class JavaPredictionModel(JavaModel, JavaPredictorParams): ...
> class JavaPredictorParams(HasLabelCol, HasFeaturesCol, HasPredictionCol): ...
> class JavaClassifierParams(HasRawPredictionCol, JavaPredictorParams): ...
> class JavaClassificationModel(JavaPredictionModel, JavaClassifierParams): ...
> class JavaProbabilisticClassifierParams(HasProbabilityCol, HasThresholds, JavaClassifierParams):
> class JavaProbabilisticClassificationModel(JavaClassificationModel, JavaProbabilisticClassifierParams):
> class LogisticRegressionModel(JavaProbabilisticClassificationModel, JavaMLWritable, JavaMLReadable,
HasTrainingSummary): ...
>  {code}
> Internal compositions a level above intended leaf, i.e.
> {code:python}
> class _JavaProbabilisticClassificationModel(JavaModel, ProbabilisticClassificationModel):
> {code}
> could be acceptable, but are hardly justified.
> - We can assume that the bottom built-in {{Transformers}} are designed as final, and
don't have to be designed for inheritance by the 3rd party projects.
> - We should assume that Scala public intermediary traits mapped to Python mixins will
be extended by the 3rd party projects, and design these accordingly.
> - (Optionally) Some of the existing types designed for JVM-interop ({{JavaModel}}, {{JavaEstimator}})
could be made internal, as they don't provide crucial information for the end user. Individual
type checks like
> {code:python}
> issubclass(LogisticRegression, JavaWrapper)
> issubclass(LogisticRegression, Estimator) 
> {code}
> or
> {code:python}
> isinstance(LogisticRegression(), Estimator)
> isinstance(LogisticRegression(), JavaWrapper)
> {code}
> are more likely in the user code than
> {code:python}
> isinstance(LogisticRegression(), JavaEstimator)
> {code}
> At least top level {{JavaWrapper}} *must* be public, as it provides crucial information
for the final user (for example allows to distinguish between objects that can pickled, and
such that require more complex serialization strategy). This is possibly a breaking change,
hence should be implemented in a major release.
> - If the above suggestions are approved and implemented we'll see two different usages
of PEP8 internal naming - one for objects that are {{private}} and not designed for extension
(for example [different compositions used for specific {{Estimator}} / {{Model}} pairs|])
and these which are used for PySpark internals (primarily Java wrappers). The latter one are
not intended for end users, but can be still utilized by 3rd party developers providing custom
multilingual libraries. Additional guidance in the docstrings would be advised.
> *Non-goals*:
> - Reducing overhead of maintaining wrappers in general (though [some related|]
ideas emerged here).

This message was sent by Atlassian Jira

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message