latm (= looks asymmetric to me)

Why allow only the algorithm? Why not also checkpointInterval, broadcastThreshold, and intermediateStorageLevel?
Why not extend this to all the other classes in GraphFrames?

I like where you're going with this...

Why allow only the algorithm?

Because I'm lazy and greedy.

And I'm gauging interest in this kind of approach.

Why allow only the algorithm?

Because I'm lazy and greedy.

Didn't know lazy people actually propose new things ... 😂

@james-willis jfyi, you can use a pre-commit hook to be sure that the code is properly formatted: https://github.com/graphframes/graphframes/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#styleguides

Alternatively, just run ./build/sbt root/scalafmtAll

Hey, and what about the Spark Connect feature in Graphframes? isn't it affected also by this change?

Hey, and what about the Spark Connect feature in Graphframes? isn't it affected also by this change?

The new interface here is just spark config so I don't think there is any need to change anything about the connect integration but if you think there is some change to be made please point me in the right direction.

Hey, and what about the Spark Connect feature in Graphframes? isn't it affected also by this change?

It isnt, there is no problem, it is just an alternative way of passing configs.

@james-willis in the latest changes we introduced a new mixin (WithAlgorithmChoice) to avoid code repeating that was added to ConnectedComponents. So, instead of redefining the default you should probably just call a setter.

Bogged down at work. will get back to this eventually.