You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com> on 2017/10/11 08:44:18 UTC
Re: IGNITE-2894 - Binary object inside of Externalizable still
serialized with OptimizedMarshaller
Hello, Igniters.
I have implemented support for the Externalizable interface in the
BinaryMarshaller without deserialization on servers.[1,2] I have made it
like the Binarylizable does in a raw writer.
Please, review.
[1]: https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
2017-09-22 18:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> Nikita,
>
> I think it should be consistent with Binarylizable.
>
> -Val
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Another problem is support BinaryObject methods, for example, when we
> need
> > to get a field(often case in queries with annotation QuerySqlField). In a
> > binary object, fields are getting from the schema, which I don't have
> > (BinaryObjectException: Cannot find schema for object with compact
> footer).
> >
> > I see such ways to resolve it:
> >
> > 1. Deserialize object and get a field.
> >
> > 2. Make methods like BinaryFieldImpl.value(obj) unavailable. I tried to
> > reproduce similar behavior with Binarylizable(rawWriter) and it throws
> the
> > same exception.
> >
> > Therefore, if we want to avoid deserialization we should get a format
> that
> > is similar to Binarylizable with a raw writer. Is it right?
> >
> > What are your thoughts?
> >
> >
> > 2017-09-19 20:10 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Nikita,
> > >
> > > It sounds like the test should be changed, no? In case I'm missing
> > > something, can you please give more details about the scenario which
> > > requires deserialization? Generally, this sounds weird - in cases when
> we
> > > can get advantage of binary format and avoid deserialization, we
> > definitely
> > > should not deserialize.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Nikita Amelchev <nsamelchev@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some
> > > messages
> > > > require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For example,
> > > tests
> > > > like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal
> throws
> > > an
> > > > exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and
> > > > processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we
> won't
> > > > process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we can
> > try
> > > to
> > > > deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall
> > method,
> > > > but it looks bad. What are your thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
> > > > > deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the
> > > > review.
> > > > > The Externalizable will marshal through type
> > GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ,
> > > in
> > > > > addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used
> > to
> > > > turn
> > > > > on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the
> > > > current
> > > > > data format.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization
> > protocol.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
> > > > >> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> D.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Folks,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > >> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being
> written
> > in
> > > > >> "raw"
> > > > >> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be
> able
> > to
> > > > >> work
> > > > >> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence,
> no
> > > > >> classes
> > > > >> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see
> PR
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I
> > am
> > > > not
> > > > >> OK
> > > > >> > with it.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thoughts?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using
> > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > [1].
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> > > > >> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which
> > implements
> > > > >> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
> > > > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection
> according
> > to
> > > > >> > current
> > > > >> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the
> > > Externalizable
> > > > >> > > interface.
> > > > >> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in
> BinaryUtils.mode(cls)
> > to
> > > > >> define
> > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> > > > >> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by
> > > GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests
> show
> > > that
> > > > >> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> > > > >> > > Externalizable object.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support
> > using
> > > > >> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> > > > >> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.
> org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> > > > >> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Nikita,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority
> > than
> > > > >> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented
> > > Binarylizable
> > > > or
> > > > >> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of
> > > > course
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > >> nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
> > > > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> > > > >> > > BinarySerializer
> > > > >> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode
> in
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the
> > > Binarylizable
> > > > >> > > > interface -
> > > > >> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I
> > do
> > > > the
> > > > >> > same
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests
> > have
> > > > >> failed
> > > > >> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the
> > > > >> serializer
> > > > >> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority
> > between
> > > > >> > > predefined
> > > > >> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of
> > > Externalizable
> > > > >> > > > interface?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Valya,
> > > > >> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and
> > > Binarylizable,
> > > > as
> > > > >> > user
> > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > >> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g.
> > > > deserialize
> > > > >> > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put
> it
> > to
> > > > >> Ignite
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without
> > > > deserialization.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > >> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the
> same
> > > way
> > > > >> as we
> > > > >> > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to
> > simply
> > > > >> > implement
> > > > >> > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing
> > > > >> BinaryWriterExImpl.
> > > > >> > > Makes
> > > > >> > > > > > sense?
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as
> binary
> > > > with
> > > > >> > flag
> > > > >> > > > 103,
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I
> > > don't
> > > > >> see
> > > > >> > any
> > > > >> > > > > > reason
> > > > >> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to
> move
> > > the
> > > > >> logic
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized
> marshaller,
> > > and
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> > > > fully
> > > > >> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included
> > in
> > > > >> them.
> > > > >> > > > > Currently
> > > > >> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use
> different
> > > set
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > handles -
> > > > >> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even
> make
> > > > sense
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > implement
> > > > >> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > >> > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in
> > marshaller
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > > custom
> > > > >> > > > > > > > serialization.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks:
> > support
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > Externalizable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to
> do
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is
> the
> > > > >> > > > Extenalizable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value.
> But
> > if
> > > > we
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as
> > the
> > > > >> > > Object(103)
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> > > > >> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
> > > > >> > > > > (If
> > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also
> dont
> > > > >> work).
> > > > >> > > Fix -
> > > > >> > > > > > check
> > > > >> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > >> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use
> this
> > > fix
> > > > or
> > > > >> > > return
> > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several
> > > > interfaces:
> > > > >> > > > > > Binarylizable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> > > > >> > Externalizable
> > > > >> > > > > > objects
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > > > >> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > > >> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's
> JavaDoc
> > > and
> > > > >> on
> > > > >> > how
> > > > >> > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that
> > ideally
> > > > we
> > > > >> > need
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization
> > > spec,
> > > > >> > > including
> > > > >> > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if
> > it's
> > > > >> > possible
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > somehow
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized
> > > > >> marshaller as
> > > > >> > > > much
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > >> > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in
> > the
> > > > BM:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the
> > > GridBinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > class
> > > > >> > > > etc
> > > > >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY
> type
> > > > >> without
> > > > >> > > > > updating
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support
> > read/writeObject
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > > Serializable
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because
> > > read/writeObject
> > > > >> > > methods
> > > > >> > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to
> > > > >> delegate
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to
> > extend
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way
> > > because
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > > writeObject
> > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > final.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support
> > Externalizable
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and
> > get
> > > > >> rid of
> > > > >> > > > > > > delegation
> > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also
> go
> > > > >> through
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary
> > > configuration
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > share
> > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care
> of
> > > all
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > issues
> > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita
> > Amelchev <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single
> Marshaller.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge
> OptimizedMarshaller
> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable
> > > > serialized
> > > > >> > with
> > > > >> > > > > > > optimized
> > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0
> > > > >> version?
> > > > >> > Or
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like
> to
> > > hear
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > > opinion.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > > >> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors
> > > list
> > > > in
> > > > >> > > JIRA.
> > > > >> > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time.
> Ignite
> > > > >> > > committers,
> > > > >> > > > > > please
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > reply
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the
> list.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still
> relevant.
> > Go
> > > > >> ahead
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > assign
> > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with
> > > > approaching
> > > > >> 2.0
> > > > >> > > > > release
> > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be
> > > > >> included in
> > > > >> > > > 2.0:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita
> > > Amelchev <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is
> still
> > > > >> relevant?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite
> > > JIRA
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > jira/browse/IGNITE
> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and
> share
> > > with
> > > > >> me.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for
> you
> > as
> > > > >> well.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > > > >> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > >> > > > > > > lists
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development
> > > process
> > > > >> > > described
> > > > >> > > > > > here:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can
> be
> > > > found
> > > > >> > here:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > >> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita
> > > > Amelchev <
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you
> > > assign
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > me?
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > --
> > > > >> > > Best wishes,
> > > > >> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>
--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita
Re: IGNITE-2894 - Binary object inside of Externalizable still
serialized with OptimizedMarshaller
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Igniters, has anyone been able to review yet? Seems like a very useful
feature.
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I have implemented support for the Externalizable interface in the
> BinaryMarshaller without deserialization on servers.[1,2] I have made it
> like the Binarylizable does in a raw writer.
>
> Please, review.
>
> [1]: https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
>
> 2017-09-22 18:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>
> > Nikita,
> >
> > I think it should be consistent with Binarylizable.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Another problem is support BinaryObject methods, for example, when we
> > need
> > > to get a field(often case in queries with annotation QuerySqlField).
> In a
> > > binary object, fields are getting from the schema, which I don't have
> > > (BinaryObjectException: Cannot find schema for object with compact
> > footer).
> > >
> > > I see such ways to resolve it:
> > >
> > > 1. Deserialize object and get a field.
> > >
> > > 2. Make methods like BinaryFieldImpl.value(obj) unavailable. I tried to
> > > reproduce similar behavior with Binarylizable(rawWriter) and it throws
> > the
> > > same exception.
> > >
> > > Therefore, if we want to avoid deserialization we should get a format
> > that
> > > is similar to Binarylizable with a raw writer. Is it right?
> > >
> > > What are your thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-09-19 20:10 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Nikita,
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like the test should be changed, no? In case I'm missing
> > > > something, can you please give more details about the scenario which
> > > > requires deserialization? Generally, this sounds weird - in cases
> when
> > we
> > > > can get advantage of binary format and avoid deserialization, we
> > > definitely
> > > > should not deserialize.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some
> > > > messages
> > > > > require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For
> example,
> > > > tests
> > > > > like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal
> > throws
> > > > an
> > > > > exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and
> > > > > processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we
> > won't
> > > > > process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we
> can
> > > try
> > > > to
> > > > > deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall
> > > method,
> > > > > but it looks bad. What are your thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <ns...@gmail.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
> > > > > > deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in
> the
> > > > > review.
> > > > > > The Externalizable will marshal through type
> > > GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ,
> > > > in
> > > > > > addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be
> used
> > > to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > > on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > data format.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization
> > > protocol.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
> > > > > >> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> D.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Folks,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed
> to
> > > use
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being
> > written
> > > in
> > > > > >> "raw"
> > > > > >> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > > >> work
> > > > > >> > with such objects without deserialization on the server.
> Hence,
> > no
> > > > > >> classes
> > > > > >> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see
> > PR
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > ticket) defines separate format which require
> deserialization, I
> > > am
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> OK
> > > > > >> > with it.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thoughts?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Hello, Igniters!
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using
> > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > [1].
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> > > > > >> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which
> > > implements
> > > > > >> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
> > > > > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection
> > according
> > > to
> > > > > >> > current
> > > > > >> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> > > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the
> > > > Externalizable
> > > > > >> > > interface.
> > > > > >> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in
> > BinaryUtils.mode(cls)
> > > to
> > > > > >> define
> > > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> > > > > >> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by
> > > > GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests
> > show
> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on
> an
> > > > > >> > > Externalizable object.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support
> > > using
> > > > > >> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> > > > > >> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.
> > org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> > > > > >> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher
> priority
> > > than
> > > > > >> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented
> > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should
> of
> > > > > course
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > >> nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
> > > > > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> > > > > >> > > BinarySerializer
> > > > > >> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define
> BinaryWriteMode
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the
> > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > >> > > > interface -
> > > > > >> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY.
> Can I
> > > do
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > same
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests
> > > have
> > > > > >> failed
> > > > > >> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined
> the
> > > > > >> serializer
> > > > > >> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority
> > > between
> > > > > >> > > predefined
> > > > > >> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of
> > > > Externalizable
> > > > > >> > > > interface?
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Valya,
> > > > > >> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and
> > > > Binarylizable,
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > user
> > > > > >> > > > > might
> > > > > >> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g.
> > > > > deserialize
> > > > > >> > > binary
> > > > > >> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > >> Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without
> > > > > deserialization.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the
> > same
> > > > way
> > > > > >> as we
> > > > > >> > > > write
> > > > > >> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to
> > > simply
> > > > > >> > implement
> > > > > >> > > > our
> > > > > >> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing
> > > > > >> BinaryWriterExImpl.
> > > > > >> > > Makes
> > > > > >> > > > > > sense?
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as
> > binary
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > flag
> > > > > >> > > > 103,
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now.
> I
> > > > don't
> > > > > >> see
> > > > > >> > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > reason
> > > > > >> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to
> > move
> > > > the
> > > > > >> logic
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > binary
> > > > > >> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized
> > marshaller,
> > > > and
> > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> > > > fully
> > > > > >> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects
> included
> > > in
> > > > > >> them.
> > > > > >> > > > > Currently
> > > > > >> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use
> > different
> > > > set
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > handles -
> > > > > >> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even
> > make
> > > > > sense
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > implement
> > > > > >> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > >> > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in
> > > marshaller
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > > > custom
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > serialization.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks:
> > > support
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Externalizable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is
> to
> > do
> > > > as
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > separate
> > > > > >> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is
> > the
> > > > > >> > > > Extenalizable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value.
> > But
> > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable
> as
> > > the
> > > > > >> > > Object(103)
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> > > > > >> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
> > > > > >> > > > > (If
> > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also
> > dont
> > > > > >> work).
> > > > > >> > > Fix -
> > > > > >> > > > > > check
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use
> > this
> > > > fix
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > return
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several
> > > > > interfaces:
> > > > > >> > > > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> > > > > >> > Externalizable
> > > > > >> > > > > > objects
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > > > > >> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > > > >> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's
> > JavaDoc
> > > > and
> > > > > >> on
> > > > > >> > how
> > > > > >> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that
> > > ideally
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > need
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java
> serialization
> > > > spec,
> > > > > >> > > including
> > > > > >> > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > >> > possible
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > somehow
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized
> > > > > >> marshaller as
> > > > > >> > > > much
> > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita
> Amelchev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable
> in
> > > the
> > > > > BM:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the
> > > > GridBinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > class
> > > > > >> > > > etc
> > > > > >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the
> BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY
> > type
> > > > > >> without
> > > > > >> > > > > updating
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support
> > > read/writeObject
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Serializable
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because
> > > > read/writeObject
> > > > > >> > > methods
> > > > > >> > > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is
> to
> > > > > >> delegate
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to
> > > extend
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way
> > > > because
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > writeObject
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > final.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support
> > > Externalizable
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller
> and
> > > get
> > > > > >> rid of
> > > > > >> > > > > > > delegation
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also
> > go
> > > > > >> through
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary
> > > > configuration
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > share
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take
> care
> > of
> > > > all
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > issues
> > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita
> > > Amelchev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single
> > Marshaller.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge
> > OptimizedMarshaller
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable
> > > > > serialized
> > > > > >> > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > > optimized
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at
> 2.0
> > > > > >> version?
> > > > > >> > Or
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > merge
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like
> > to
> > > > hear
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > > > >> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the
> contributors
> > > > list
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > JIRA.
> > > > > >> > > > > This
> > > > > >> > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time.
> > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > committers,
> > > > > >> > > > > > please
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > reply
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the
> > list.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still
> > relevant.
> > > Go
> > > > > >> ahead
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > assign
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with
> > > > > approaching
> > > > > >> 2.0
> > > > > >> > > > > release
> > > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must
> be
> > > > > >> included in
> > > > > >> > > > 2.0:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita
> > > > Amelchev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is
> > still
> > > > > >> relevant?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda
> <
> > > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in
> Ignite
> > > > JIRA
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/IGNITE
> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and
> > share
> > > > with
> > > > > >> me.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for
> > you
> > > as
> > > > > >> well.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > > >> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development
> > > > process
> > > > > >> > > described
> > > > > >> > > > > > here:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can
> > be
> > > > > found
> > > > > >> > here:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita
> > > > > Amelchev <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > nsamelchev@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can
> you
> > > > assign
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > me?
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > --
> > > > > >> > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>